He graduated in 1986 from Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) holding a JD degree as well as a Masters in Intellectual Property Law from Franklin Pierce Law Center in the United States. He has furthered his postgraduate studies at other prestigious academic institutions, including Georgetown University, the University of Amsterdam and Universidad Panamericana. Mr. Schmidt is the author of over 100 articles in Intellectual Property law matters, a contributor to two books on copyright law and a regular lecturer out post-graduate level. He sits on the board of directors at Copyright World and has acted as both Secretary and President of the board of la Asociación Mexicana para la Protección de la Propiedad Intelectual (AMPPI) and the Mexican Group of the International Association for the Protection of Industrial Property (AIPPI). Not withstanding his success on law grounds, Mr. Schmidt’s work has now reached multiple areas now with the release of his poetry Book “De la Catarsis al Éxtasis”. Mr. Schmidt’s work at Olivares & Cia., is extensive, reaching most areas of media. He has a large practice in many industries, including film, television and radio production, distribution, exhibition or broadcasting; music publishing and sound recording production, distribution and publishing; as well as software. He has specialized in protecting Intellectual Property rights on the Internet. As hard as it is to find updated global Intellectual Property information, a compilation of articles by a worldwide ranked copyright specialist willing to share his knowledge and experience is a valuable tool to have. The articles listed in this compilation are not only the result of years of continuous learning, but they are the gathering of years of practice. The first time when we had Luis C. Schmidt’s the articles of in our hands; it was clear that knowledge required to be systematized. The use of this information, experience and thoughts, should assure the sharing of a valuable resource of investigation and learning for students, academics, professionals, investigators and all person eager to learn about the different routes of Intellectual Property. For students, this compilation is a clear evidence of how Intellectual Property has developed through the time and therefore, a clue to find out what can the industry expect in the following years. The leap that must be taken from the books and theory to the actual practice is likely to be difficult for students that have been taught with classical theories

that have now been left behind because of technological globalization needs envisaged by the Intellectual Property system.

and

As a young attorney this could be one of the greatest compilations ever, because through its pages there is an uncountable knowledge, which will help as an introduction as well as a path to follow. Multidisciplinarity is one of the most valuable assets in this compilation, as Intellectual Property cannot be considered as an individual subject matter but as a whole, taking into consideration its particular characteristics and areas of opportunity to address them in an efficient and prompt manner. Luis C. Schmidt is one of the greatest lawyers in Mexico, specialist in different subjects of Intellectual Property. During his life he has developed an unthinkable amount of knowledge that through his articles is shared. Consider this compilation as a gift of knowledge from one of the greatest minds in Intellectual Property in Mexico, and use it to enlarge your panorama regarding issues in the industry, even before they are there. This concept grounds the raising of this compilation in an electronic format that will enhance the searches of information. Likewise, will let the users carry and use it as soon as required, anytime, anywhere. Having accomplished this work is the conclusion of a step that will assure the massive distribution of this valuable work of investigation. Moreover, it will assure the answers to many questions of coming generations. Mariel Soriano, Fernanda Díaz and Sergio Rangel.

Breve análisis sobre la protección jurídica de los programas de computación en México Internet domain names, trademarks and trade names The impact of E-Commerce on Mexico´s IP laws Computer software and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): will Mexican law represent a trade barrier? Database protection in Mexico MEXICO: Interception and use of satellite broadcasting Privacy issues under Mexican Law Technology challenges digital rights MULTIMEDIA: Creación de naturaleza jurídica multifacética Using the Criminal Law to fight online piracy Digital Millennium 'a la Mexicaine' Exceptions to copyright protection and the permitted uses of copyright works in the hi-tech and digital sectors Exceptions to copyright protection and the permitted uses of copyrighted works in the hi-tech and digital sectors Database protection in Mexico The changing face to copyright The new digital agenda Time for users to take responsibility? Acquittal of satellite decoders highlights need for legal reform MEXICO: Internet Copyright The first balanced approach to protecting copyright online In Mexico, software owners find rights are illusory Internet y la industria farmacéutica

1. SOURCES OF LAW 1.1. What are the principal sources of law and regulation relating to copyright and copyright litigation? (Briefly describe the role of international, federal or state laws and relevance of court decisions, list and briefly describe relevant statutes and international treaties). The sources of national law relating to copyright law and copyright litigation are: · · · · · · · · · Federal Copyright Law of 1996 (the Copyright Law); Industrial Property Law of 1991; Federal Penal Law of 1931; Federal Civil Code of 1928; Federal Code of Administrative Proceedings of 1994; Federal Code of Civil Proceedings of 1943; Federal Code of Penal Proceedings of 1931; Customs Law of 1995 (the Customs Law); and Cinematography Law of 1992.

The sources of national regulations to laws relating to copyright or litigation are: · · · Regulations to the Copyright Law of 1998; Regulations to the Industrial Property Law of 1994; Tariff for Public Performance in General;
8

· · · ·

Tariff for Theatrical Performance; Tariff for Film Exhibition; Tariff for Public Performance in Hotels; and Tariff for Broadcasting of Musical Works.

The sources of international law relating to copyright or litigation are: · · · · · · · · · · · · Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, Paris Act; Universal Copyright Convention as revised in 1971; Inter-American Copyright Convention on Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works; Convention for the Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Reproduction of their Phonograms; Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations; Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite; Treaty on the International Registration of Audiovisual Works; WIPO Copyright Treaty; WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty; Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights; North American Free Trade Agreement; and A number of free trade agreements without specific IP rules.

1.2. What is the order of priority of the relevant sources, ie which take precedent in the event of a conflict?

9

Constitutional fundamentals dictate that federal laws, such as the Copyright Law and international treaties, are of equal application. However, disputes arising from contradictions or loopholes in the federal laws, have lead the Supreme Court of Justice to declare that international treaties pre-empt federal laws. This means that international treaty rules, when drafted as provisions having selfexecuting scope, shall prevail if federal laws contradict. 2. COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SYSTEM 2.1. In which courts are copyrights enforced? Are they specialised copyrights courts? If not, what level of expertise can a copyright holder expect from the courts? Copyrights can be enforced before administrative, civil or criminal bodies or courts. The action available depends on the type of rights enforced. Administrative actions can be brought before the Patent and Trademark Office (Mexican Industrial Property Institute or IMPI, by its initials in Spanish) or the Copyright Office. IMPI is in charge of enforcing copyright and neighbouring exclusive economic rights through infringement actions. The reason is that the Copyright Law of 1996 remits copyright enforcement actions to the procedural rules of industrial property law. Since IMPI performed as the enforcer of patent and trade mark rights for many years, it was easy for Congress to insert copyright within IMPI’s jurisdiction. IMPI is an administrative body dealing with the registration aspects of industrial property rights. Congress appointed it because of the specialized nature of patents and trade marks and the chance that administrative proceedings could be shorther than judicial proceedings. On the other hand, the Copyright Office – another specialized government body dealing with registration and other administrative endeavours arising from copyright law – had no experience whatsoever in enforcing rights at the time Congress was discussing a new copyright procedural system back in 1996. With the advent of the Copyright Law of 1996, the Copyright Office was empowered to render sanctions against certain administrative violations of Copyright Law, including protection of moral rights of paternity and integrity, but not to enforce economic rights.

10

Decisions made by IMPI can be appealed before an administrative justice tribunal that reviews all sorts of resolutions coming from bodies or instances of the executive branch. The name of the tribunal can be translated as the Federal Tribunal for Tax and Administrative Affairs. The Tax Tribunal, as it is called in short, has created an ad hoc chamber or section that deals exclusively with intellectual property matters. The resolutions of the Tax Tribunal can be reviewed by federal judicial courts, namely circuit courts. Civil actions can be either brought before federal or local civil courts, when parties dispute remuneration rights, such as unpaid royalties deriving from license, assignment or other contracts, or remuneration rights that authors enjoy from public exploitation of their works after they have assigned their exclusive economic rights to third parties. Likewise, civil actions can be taken to pursue damages from violations to exclusive economic rights. However, such actions are available only after IMPI resolutions declaring infringement of rights have become firm. Civil courts have no specialization in copyright affairs. Criminal actions can be brought before criminal courts, in the case of copyright piracy activities or infringement that is perpetrated in bad faith and on a commercial scale. The Federal Constitution has conferred on the Attorney General the monopoly to take criminal actions. The role of the Attorney General’s Office is to investigate copyright crimes mainly through a specialized unit that gathers district attorneys that are qualified in the field. By contrast, criminal courts have no specialization in copyright law. 2.2. Is there any administrative body (eg a copyright office)? If so, does it have any jurisdiction in copyright litigation? The copyright Office is in charge of registering copyrighted works. Mexico follows a registration system, although registration is voluntary. Registration is ‘declarative’ and not ‘constitutive’ of copyright. However, authors or copyright holders have found the registration system to be useful, since registration represents prima facie evidence of copyright ownership, and is actually the most practical vehicle to prove ownership. Courts like copyright certificates. As stated above, the Copyright Office is entitled to render sanctions against certain aspects of the Copyright

11

Law, including moral rights protection, although this latter capacity can only be inferred, since the statute is not express in this respect.

2.3. To what extent are courts willing to consider, or are bound by, the opinions of other national or foreign courts that have handed down decisions in similar cases? For obvious reasons, courts are not bound to follow resolutions rendered by foreign courts. However, sometimes IMPI or civil courts have been persuaded, or at least become interested, when parties have cited foreign awards in their allegations. 2.4. Who can represent parties before the courts handling copyright litigation? Licensed attorneys-at-law, empowered by the plaintiff or defendant, if the matter takes place in a judicial court. If the matter is criminal, district attorneys, empowered under law, handle the proceedings. Any person can intervene at IMPI, in the capacity of representative of the conflicting parties. Collecting societies that have fulfilled legal requirements to represent affiliate members can take actions on their behalf. In a recent case, a defendant film exhibitor alleged that the plaintiff, a collecting society representing music composers, had no standing to bring an action since it did not file the powers of attorneys bestowed by its members and required under procedural laws when actions are filed on behalf of others. The Circuit Court stated that the collecting society was not required to show powers of attorney to take the action because it had a ‘privileged status’. The defendant moved at the Supreme Court of Justice for certiorari, arguing that it was a violation of constitutional principles that the judges recognize that parties enjoy a ‘privileged status’ in court proceedings. The case has been referred to the Supreme Court and resolution is pending. 2.5. What is the language of the proceedings? Is there a choice of language? The language of proceedings before the courts or administrative bodies can only be Spanish.

12

3. SUBSTANTIVE LAW 3.1. What types of works are copyrightable under your law? Does your national law provide for a closed list of copyrightable works or for an open list? The Copyright Law has employed the Berne Convention expression of ‘literary and artistic works’, which are original creations in literature, arts and science. In keeping with this, the notion of copyrightable works is broad and inclusive so as to consider any creative expressions that can be referred to as works of authorship. Likewise, the Copyright Law lists copyrighted works into the following non-exhaustive categories: literary works; musical works; dramatic works; choreographic works; paintings or drawings; sculptures or plastic works; architectural works; works of applied arts, including textile and graphic designs; compilations, characterized as encyclopedias, anthologies, and other related works; photographs, radio programs; films and other audiovisual works; computer software; graphic digital works; audiovisual digital works; and databases. 3.2. Does the author or a work have to be a national of your country for the work to qualify as copyrightable or does a work quality for copyright protection irrespective of the nationality of the author? The author of a work does not have to be a national of Mexico for the work to qualify as copyrightable and therefore, works qualify for copyright protection irrespective of the nationality of the author. The copyright Law states that foreign copyright owners enjoy the same rights as nationals, pursuant to the international treaties to which Mexico has subscribed. As for neighbouring rights owners, the Copyright Law extends protection to performing artists, phonogram (sound recordings) producers or broadcasting organizations who have first fixed their performances, sound recordings or broadcast signals in a foreign land, in conformity with international treaties on neighbouring rights. 3.3. What types of rights are covered by copyright? To what extent are moral rights covered by copyright? Generally speaking, copyright affords to authors ab initio economic and moral rights. As an exception, copyright confers economic rights on
13

audiovisual producers and neighbouring rights to video recording producers. Likewise, copyright affords economic rights to commissioners of works in the case of works made for hire. Moral rights are personal to authors, cannot be transferred and are perpetual. Economic rights can be divided into exclusive rights to authorize or prohibit and remuneration rights. The latter accrue in favour of authors when they have assigned their exclusive rights to third parties. Authors contributing to audiovisual productions enjoy remuneration rights from the exhibitor, broadcaster or other user of the audiovisuals. All economic rights – both the right to authorize or prohibit and remuneration rights – can be assigned. 3.4. What defences are available to an alleged infringer? To what extent can ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’ be used as a defence? If these doctrines do not exist, are there any comparable limitations? Alleged infringers can bring defences on different grounds. The first layer of defence is that the plaintiff: i) is not the author of the work or has no rights to it; or ii) that the creation does not qualify as a copyrightable work. The second layer of defence is that the defendant: i) did not use or exploit (copy in whole or part, distribute, publicly perform or transform) the work; or ii) that the use made was permitted by the law because of a limitation of economic rights, or was made outside the scope of the law, in particular the infringement provisions. 3.5. Is there a requirement of copyright registration? Is copyright registration required to enforce a copyright, ie to obtain damages or other relief? Is a copyright deposit required? Is a copyright notice required? What are the consequences, if any, for failure to make a copyright deposit or to display a copyright notice? Copyright protection is not subject to registration, not even to recover damages or other forms of relief. The Copyright Office registers works, but copyright holders do not have an obligation to register. Deposit is not considered under Copyright Law. A copyright notice is also not a requirement for protecting rights or for taking actions. However, the
14

Copyright Law considers it an administrative infringement, subject to fines, if notices are not properly affixed onto copies of works subject to distribution. That provision goes against the domestic system and attempts to adhere to Berne Convention principles. 3.6. How long does copyright protection last? The term of protection of economic rights is life of the author plus 100 years. The term is applicable to every work without exception. The Copyright Law does not provide special terms for work-for-hire or other situations, in which the life plus 100 years rule cannot be applied. 3.7. How is copyright infringement assessed? Is actual copying to be proved or is substantial similarity sufficient to establish infringement? The Copyright Law is unclear in this respect. In principle, from the reading of the statute, it appears that in order to infringe, copying needs to be literal. However, in practice courts have decided cases using the doctrine of substantial similarity. 3.8. Are there any particularities of assessing copyright infringement for specific types of works (eg software)? The Copyright Law does not contemplate particularities for assessing infringement of any works, including software. In practice, infringement shall be examined taking into consideration the nature or category of works. For example, copying of musical works shall depend on issues like the musical structure, metric and sequence, harmony or melody used. In the particular case of software, theories like abstraction tests are valid and can be followed. 3.9. Can a copyright be enforced against a trade mark, a domain name, a trade name, a pseudonym or other distinctive signs? Copyright can certainly be enforced against trade marks consisting of artworks or copyrighted designs. Likewise, the Copyright Law affords copyright related rights – called ‘reserved rights’ – to characters, titles of publications and artistic names. The law grants infringement actions against users of reserved rights when used without consent, no matter if used as trade marks or distinctive signs. However, if the user of the copyrighted work or reserved rights obtains a trade mark registration, it
15

will require cancellation based on the copyright or reserved rights. Reserved right holders can also request the transfer of domain name registrations by virtue of the Local Dispute Resolution Policty (LDRP), in connection with .mx domains. 3.10. On what grounds can a copyright be invalidated? Copyright can be invalidated on the basis that it is not a copyrightable work of authorship, but merely a non-original expression of an idea. Copyright registrations can be annulled for the same reasons as in paternity disputes between a registrant and the true author or copyright owner. 3.11. To what extent can enforcement of a copyright expose the copyright holder to liability for an antitrust violation? A copyright holder can be exposed to liability for antitrust violation to the extent that they carry out an uncompetitive practice by using the work in abuse of the respective rights. For example, that by using the work the right holder excludes competitors from the market. 3.12. Are there any grounds on which an otherwise valid copyright can be deemed unenforceable, owing to misconduct by the copyright holder, or for some other reason? Is there a time limit for bringing an infringement action? Nothing in addition to the foregoing. 3.13. Can a copyright holder bring a lawsuit claiming both copyright infringement and unfair competition for the same set of facts? A copyright holder can bring legal actions claiming both copyright infringement and unfair competition for the same facts. The two actions are not mutually exclusive. A copyright action would focus on the protection of a work – for example, computer software that is distributed or commercialised in a particular form. Unfair competition would focus on the uncompetitive practices that a person carries out in order to distort the market – for example, by making and distributing unauthorized copies of the software, or using marks and other distinctive features of the original product with the result that consumers become confused.
16

4. PARTIES TO LITIGATION 4.1. Who can sue for copyright infringement (copyright holder, exclusive licensee, non-exclusive licensee, distributor)? Does a licensee need to be registered to be eligible to sue? The copyright holder, as the owner of the economic or moral rights, is eligible to sue for infringement; royalty collection or recovery; cancellation; paternity disputes; or in general take any action in connection with the rights provided under the Copyright Law. Copyright holders can only assign their economic rights. Being derivative copyright owners, assignees of economic rights can only sue on the basis of contracts executed in writing and recorded at the Copyright Office. Audiovisual producers can bring actions in connection with their audiovisuals as well as parties who have commissioned the realisation of the works. Neighbouring right holders are entitled to take action to enforce their rights. Licensees of copyright or neighbouring rights can bring actions based on the licence agreement, provided that the licensor grants to the licensee the right to defend their rights and that the agreement is recorded. 4.2. Under what conditions, if any, can an alleged infringer bring a lawsuit to obtain a declaratory judgment on non-infringement? A declaratory judgment of non-infringement is not an action recognised by either the Copyright Law or general procedural laws. Thus, noninfringement can only be raised as a defence in infringement proceedings. 4.3. Who can be sued for copyright infringement? Can the company directors be sued personally? Under what conditions, if any, can someone be sued for including or contributing to copyright infringement by someone else? Users of works can be sued for copyright infringement when they have not been authorized by the copyright holder. Users can also be sued for collection of royalties or remuneration rights when they have used the works without authorization from the copyright holder, and have not paid their remuneration duties, deriving form the law or from contracts. The law understands ‘user’ to mean the individual or corporation:

17

iii) communicating to the public. Neither the Copyright Law nor the general procedural laws recognise the theories of contributory infringement or vicarious liability. Likewise. has been convicted of a crime. managers. or iv) transforming a copyrighted work. Directors.as such. ii) distributing copies. Broadly speaking. depending on the type of infringement or violation perpetrated. the Federal Penal Code prescribes the circumstances under which somebody is deemed to commit a crime. members of management committees or perhaps shareholders of companies would personally respond if the company that they invest in. 5. Is it possible to add or subtract parties during litigation? It is not possible to add parties during litigation. manage. they are restricted to situations where participants knowingly take positive steps to assist those who have ultimately perpetrated the crime. criminal or administrative actions. representatives. copyright holders can explore civil. What options are open to a copyright holder when seeking to enforce its rights in your country? As explained above.
18
.4. Each of the aforementioned routes follows their own procedures and has different measures and remedies. It is not possible to subtract though. ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS 5. For example. Criminal laws provide rules that can only be proximate to contributory infringement. However.i) making copies. or represent. if the plaintiff reaches settlement with one or more codefendants notifies the settlement to the court and the proceedings continue against the non-settling co-defendants(s).1. copyright holders seeking to enforce rights have alternatives. the Penal Code recognises specific secondary liability when third parties supply the ‘raw materials’ or consumables’ for reproducing works. 4.

when there is little or no information about the vessels or containers. However. Prison terms are generally high. The scope of the Customs Law is narrow and requires that the party asking for the border measure identifies the vessel carrying containers with pirated works. Copyrights or trade marks are not subject to registration with the Customs Office. Additional prison terms can be imposed if district attorneys bring charges and actually prove that pirates acted in organized crime groups. since customs officers receive from copyright holders lists or catalogues with depictions of their goods and organize training sessions in order to learn how to differentiate between original and pirated copies. For example. The sanctions are prison. for making unjustified threats of copyright infringement? It is not compulsory to send a cease and desist letter to an alleged infringer before commencing copyright infringement proceedings. the Customs Office has taken been instrumental in assisting criminal and administrative authorities as well as plaintiffs to implement border measures. The foregoing means that once the crime has been indicted and the judge has attracted the case. for example when users of works have acted in bad faith on a commercial scale.
19
. what are the sanctions? Criminal proceedings are available. Are criminal proceedings available? If so. 5. Is it compulsory to send a cease and desist letter to an alleged infringer before commencing copyright infringement proceedings? What are the consequences. the system has still worked well. the alleged pirate or pirates shall be remanded in custody during the trial until sentence is served and the crime confirmed or disregarded. Are border measures available? The Customs Law provides that border measures are applicable in connection with copyright enforcement proceedings.3. In fact. in essence.5. against different forms of copyright piracy.2. In practice. some copyright piracy crimes have been elevated to the status of felonies. fines and other things that would typically apply in criminal law. if any.4. 5. making or distributing pirated copies or works can lead to prison terms of up to ten years.

5. including at the Supreme Court of Justice. for violations to the Mexican Copyright Law perpetrated by parties domiciled outside Mexico. has been used more frequently. for how disputes can be arbitrated.6. since the question has never been raised in practice. how awards can be executed. but more particularly arbitration. It keeps
20
. The copyright Office is empowered to act as an arbitration institution as well. which have set criteria under the framework of the New York Convention. However.7. 5. Since ADR. To what extent are alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods (such as arbitration or mediation) available to resolve copyright disputes? How widespread are ADR methods and in which sectors? ADR has become an important method for resolving disputes. for example. However. and under what conditions they can be challenged. with an emphasis on the film industry.5. 5. Procedural rules allow judges to declare extra-territorial injunctions. such criminal actions have been unsuccessful. it would be hard to know if judges would be willing to support and petition orders such as this. general arbitration institutions like the Mexican Chamber of Commerce or Centro de Arbitraje de Mexico have lists of copyright experts. Copyright arbitration has been growing in parallel to general commercial arbitration.Delivering a cease and desist letter has been a common practice by litigators and copyright holders. arguing that they have been affected by unjustified threats. To what extent are courts willing to grant cross-border or extra-territorial injunctions? The issue of cross-border or extra-territorial injunctions has not been tested before the court system of Mexico. Likewise. a number of cases have arrived at court. To what extent do courts recognise the blocking effect of ‘torpedo’ actions abroad? Blocking ‘torpedo’ actions has never been raised as an issue before Mexican courts. Sometimes infringers have filed criminal actions against the signatories of such letters based on libel or slander. More and more licence or other agreements relating to copyright or entertainment law matters are negotiated with arbitration clauses.

and the Federal Code of Penal Proceedings. and is therefore empowered to collect evidence to
21
. The fact that a criminal action is private means that the federal prosecutor can only start to investigate after a copyright owner or their representative has filed a claim. Criminal proceedings are divided into preliminary inquiries and a process or trial. the states’ procedural codes substitute the federal legislation. hearings. but are more restrictively applied in practice. or by a public claim (depending on the type of crime) and terminates with a resolution granting or denying indictment. Such rules cover filing and responding to complaints. Criminal proceedings are exclusively federal and are governed by the Copyright Law. and appeal. sentences. PROCEDURE IN CIVIL COURTS 6. in comparison to the Law on Industrial Property.a list of arbitrators which is updated every year and published in the federal government’s gazette. Considering that civil proceedings are governed by either federal or local procedural codes. but the Copyright Law continues to apply. copyright holders and users have used arbitration systems such as the Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA) or the new WIPO arbitration project on entertainment law.1. The copyright owner can control the initiation and termination of the proceeding by withdrawing the claim at any time. the Penal Code. What is the format of copyright infringement proceedings? The format of copyright infringement proceedings depends on the action filed. The investigative stage starts with a private claim by the copyright owner through private actions. allegations. Both have Mexican experts on their lists. actions claiming remuneration or damages or requesting the cancellation or registrations must follow these statutes’ norms and rules. applicable in substantive matters. The Copyright Law. In local litigation. incidental recourses. The federal prosecutor or district attorney is in charge of the investigation. 6. Preliminary measures are possible under the procedural codes. and the Federal Code of Civil Proceedings govern litigation in federal courts. Accordingly. On an international level. title and representation have to be proved.

is required. including preliminary injunctions. Sometimes. in particular when a given procedural norm is insufficient. conducted at the premises of the alleged infringer. Among other investigative measures. and seizures. and final arguments. Preliminary measures are possible before or even during the principal proceeding. a third party. After indictment. the civil proceedings code can supplement the administrative code. after assessment of the matter. may file an appeal before a unitary court and then file a review at a circuit court. who then starts a criminal process or trial if. 6.2.conclude that a crime has been committed and that somebody presumably inflicted it. The judge conducts the criminal trial with the General Attorney’s Office as the plaintiff and the alleged criminal as defendant. the matter is brought before a district judge. Resolutions can be appealed before the federal administrative court and reviewed at a circuit court. The Copyright Law. an answer. the Law on Industrial Property. The victim may assist the General Attorney in the prosecution of the trial. Both the General Attorney’s Office and the defendant.
22
. inspections. The alleged defendant is granted a constitutional right to reply to the charges and to be rendered formally imprisoned or liberated if charges have no merit. if convicted. If inspection is made of private property. a search and warrants order. they arrive at a prima facie conclusion that there is a crime to judge. they are generally restricted to the filing of a complaint. the Federal Code of Administrative Proceedings. issued by a judge. Are disputed issues decided by a judge or a jury? Disputed issues are always decided by judges in a court proceeding. the district attorney can inspect premises and seize objects. and the Federal Code of Civil Proceedings govern them. In theory. or at a customs office. Administrative contentious proceedings are summary in nature and are intended to avoid procedural steps like incidents or intermediate appeals. or by administrative officers if held at IMPI. Copyright administrative proceedings are federal as well.

what other.5. and vice versa.4. Is evidence obtained for criminal proceedings admissible in civil proceedings. In administrative proceedings. Administrative proceedings are subject to certain restrictions. To what extent is survey evidence used (eg to prove substantial similarity)? What is its relevance in proceedings (eg party allegation. are not questions addressed to consumers or the general public. In administrative proceedings. Both parties appoint experts who render testimonies in writing and the court or IMPI brings third party experts to render their opinion when testimonies conflict. 6.3. including issues of substantial similarity. To what extent is pre-trial discovery permitted? If it is permitted. affidavits are equal to testimonies and can have persuasive value. To what extent are documents. Expert testimonies are required to comply with formalities. court expert)? What level of cost should one expect to incur to carry out a survey? Are these costs recoverable from the losing party? Survey evidence is principally used at IMPI in connection with trade mark matters. and vice versa? Evidence obtained for criminal proceedings is admissible in civil proceedings. In civil and criminal instances the value of affidavits is small. 6. since parties can only submit testimonies and confessions in writing and therefore cross-examination is not possible. witnesses and/or (court-appointed or private) experts used? Is it possible to cross-examine witnesses? Civil and criminal proceedings allow all forms of evidence under the procedural laws. how is discovery conducted? If it is not permitted. evidence)? Who decides which consumers are questioned in the survey (eg the court. Copying is instead addressed by experts in their field.6.6. mechanisms are available for obtaining evidence from an adverse party or from third parties? Discovery is not available under any procedural laws. any party can ask IMPI to order the adverse party to
23
. It has been never used in copyright proceedings. taking into account that copying. 6. affidavits. if any.

they can bring frivolous counteractions to challenge the copyright.9.)? The typical remedies available in civil matters are monetary. shutdown
24
. taking advantage of the fact that the courts or IMPI have to decide on the counter-actions prior to addressing the principal action. 6. depending on whether the alleged infringers were caught re-handed and thus indicted in a short time. publication of the decision. It is hard for a plaintiff to counter delay these tactics aside from asking the court or IMPI to resolve them as quickly as possible. if any. For example. The rule states that the piece of evidence needs to be specified and be connected to the issues subject to the litigation. etc. FINAL REMEDIES 7. They could be expedited. if any. What level of proof is required for establishing infringement or invalidity? In order to establish infringement or invalidity. but that depends on the backlog of IMPI. fines.1. What remedies are available against a copyright infringer (final injuction. Criminal matters can be quick. to demonstrate the wrong.produce evidence. objectively and directly demonstrate the wrong or contribute. and sometimes can be longer if the subject matter involved is more complex. 7. There are a number of alternatives to take. delivery up or destruction of infringing goods. recall-order. Remedies in administrative matters are typically final injunction. 6. proof must convincingly. are available to a defendant seeking to delay the proceedings? Under what conditions. Administrative proceedings take from two to five years.7. monetary remedies. can proceedings be stayed? How can a plaintiff counter delaying tactics of a defendant? Defendants can utilise tactics to delay proceedings. What options. together with other proof.8. 6. How long do copyright infringement proceedings typically last? Is it possible to expedite this process? Civil proceedings may take from one to three years.

To the extent it is possible to obtain a final injunction against future infringement. Remedies in criminal matters are typically imprisonment. and remedies used by judges to repair affection to society. public performance or other use of a work not involving distribution of copy). The 40 per cent rule does not represent punitive or statutory damages. applicable once copyright infringement is found. which dictates that judges shall declare damages for economic or moral rights violation to be at least 40 per cent of the ‘sale price’ obtained by the infringer from ‘selling copies’ of works or ‘rendering services’. The difference is that it does not trigger automatically from infringement. fines. 7. and ii) profits that the plaintiff would have earned if the infringement had not been committed. 7. What monetary remedies are available against a copyright infringer (reasonable royalty. despite the language employed in the law being quite straightforward. What the author or copyright holder is required to prove in order to request application of the 40 per cent
25
. The theory is known as the 40 per cent rule.2. otherwise the 40 per cent rule would go against civil law and the Constitution. under what conditions? Are liability and quantum of monetary remedies assessed at the same time by the court or is the quantum assessed at a separate. The award cannot then be rendered for an amount that is less than the sale price of the infringing copy or service provided (applicable to. The rule functions as a minimum standard provision applicable when damages can be proved.3. Damages need to be proved first. or both. or some other basis)? Are punitive damages available? If so. or in general. but rests closer to these than lost profits or reasonable royalties. and destruction of seized goods. The Copyright Law contemplates an ad hoc formula.of establishment. lost profits. can be employed against future infringements. for example. is it effective against the infringer’s suppliers or customers? Final injunctions can be effective against the infringer’s suppliers or customers. later stage from liability? The civil procedural code stipulates a so-called ‘damage’ and ‘prejudice’ theory which means that a plaintiff can recover: i) economic loss – including lost profits and royalties. account of profits.

8. In fact they are so quick that the examiners at IMPI never stop to make a prima facie infringement analysis. since the author claiming damages for violation of moral right would first need to show that the infringement triggered economic harm. Is ex parte relief available. seizures and site inspections.1. There are no decisions awarding damages for violation of moral rights.2. without having obtained authorization from the copyright holder or without having paid a royalty. under what conditions? Preliminary injunction proceedings before IMPI are ex parte or inaudita altera pars. documents or evidence or to arrest people. how is it determined? Civil procedure laws provide preliminary measures. but courts apply them so restrictively that they are never granted. In criminal proceedings. the range of preliminary measures is plentiful. The downside is that defendants can lift preliminary measures easily by posting a bond or a counter-bond (if IMPI previously required the plaintiff to file a bond as a warranty against damages and in order to grant the preliminary measures requested). PRELIMINARY RELIEF 8. Proceedings are effective and relief is granted and implemented quickly. On the administrative side. The rule is more complicated in the case of moral rights. where the defendant is given no notice at all? If so. among others. district attorneys can ask judges to render search and warrant orders in order to conduct raids and ultimately seize infringing copies.rule is that the infringer of a patrimonial copyright right made an income or revenue by selling copies of a work or by rendering a service using a work. Is preliminary relief available? If so. However. in order to maintain balance they discharge injunctions by requesting
26
. review premises. plaintiffs can seek preliminary injunctions. Accordingly. 8. what preliminary measures are available (eg preliminary injunction) and under what conditions? Is urgency a condition for the court to grant preliminary relief? If so.

6. if any. Seizure of infringing copies of works can be made as a result of the search.4. go back to their activities. Are protective writs known in your country and what effects do they have on the preliminary injunction proceedings? Protective writs are not known in Mexico. the system is very inefficient. However. 8. are available for seizing and preserving evidence for trial? In administrative and criminal proceedings. 8. a plaintiff is entitled to ask for an order that the defendant’s premises are searched and a description of the infringing goods. what other mechanisms. defendants generally wait until the plaintiff actually brings an infringement action in order to counterclaim the validity of the copyright. Evidence is submitted for this purpose.5. 8. showing a prima facie copyright infringement. What is the format of preliminary injunction proceedings? The plaintiff files a petition for preliminary measures in writing. Bearing that in mind. A few days later. IMPI admits the petition and assesses the infringement (although in practice. who after posting them. Can the defendant put the validity of a copyright at issue in preliminary injunction proceedings? The Copyright Law and procedural laws do not allow a defendant to challenge the validity of copyright in preliminary infringement proceedings of an administrative kind.bonds from alleged infringers. Is the plaintiff entitled to ask for an order that the defendant’s premises are searched and a description of the infringing goods (and the accounting data relating thereto) is made in order to establish proof of infringement (saisiecontrefacon)? If not. 8.3. together with a bond as a warrant of damages. they do not analyse infringement at all and just approve the petition blindly). are made in order to establish proof of infringement. The Copyright and Industrial Property Laws follow TRIPS standards in connection with preliminary measures proceedings and how they are independent from regular infringement proceedings. and accounting data relating to them. IMPI responds to the plaintiff generally granting the petition and providing a date for it as well as a date for performing a
27
.

How long do preliminary injunction proceedings typically last?
28
. What level of proof is required for establishing infringement or invalidity in preliminary injunction proceedings? The level of proof required for establishing infringement in preliminary injunction proceedings is showing a prima facie case. the plaintiff has 10 business days to file an infringement action. and/or (court-appointed or private) experts used in preliminary injunction proceedings? In theory. how are the damages calculated? Must the plaintiff provide some form of bond/guarantee to compensate the defendant in he event that the preliminary injunction is later held to have been wrongly imposed? This question has been discussed extensively above. 8. If a preliminary injunction is granted and the main infringement action is finally lost. the defendant has 20 business days to produce a response. affidavits. IMPI may ask the plaintiff to elevate the amount of the bond if after the search and seizure is made. 8. The level of proof required for establishing invalidity in preliminary injunction proceedings is full proof. However. To what extent are documents.search of premises and seizure. which IMPI normally fixes as double the original bond. if requested by the plaintiff. based on the merits of the matter. IMPI arrives at the conclusion that the original amount was too low to warrant possible damages if the case is decided in favour of the defendant.9.7. can the defendant claim damages for the unjustified preliminary injunction? If so.8. subject to the limitations of administrative proceedings. Once the preliminary measures are notified and implemented. 8. At the same time.
8. most petitions are supported by documentary evidence only. The defendant will be allowed to ask IMPI to eliminate the preliminary measures order by posting a counter-bond. survey evidence. all sorts of evidence is valid in preliminary injunction proceedings. witnesses.10.

Where a preliminary injunction is granted.2.11. What avenues of appeal are available for a defeated party in main proceedings or preliminary injunction proceedings? Under what conditions? Please see above. is relief usually stayed pending the outcome of the appeal? If an appeal is filed relief stays pending its outcome.2. LITIGATION COSTS 10.3. Can attorney fees and costs be recovered by the winning party? Attorney fees ad costs can indeed be recovered by the winning party.1. 9. 9. 11. FORTHCOMING LEGISLATION
29
. is it necessary to start main proceedings to confirm the preliminary injunction? It is necessary to start main proceedings to confirm a preliminary injunction within 10 business days after the latter has been notified to defendant. APPEAL PROCEDURE 9. 9. 10. If an appeal is filed. and depending on how frivolously the losing party behaved in the opinion of the judge. What level of cost should one expect to incur to take a case through to a first instance decision.Preliminary injunction proceedings take a few days of weeks from the date that they are filed to when they are implemented. preliminary injunction proceedings and/or appeal proceedings? Not applicable. only in civil proceedings.1. 10. How long do appeal proceedings typically last? Appeal proceedings last between six months and one year. 8.

please outline any mayor copyright legislation in the pipeline. including useful websites.2.1.11. 12. Not applicable. To the extent it relates to copyright enforcement. What are the important developing and emerging trends in your country’s copyright law? No developing and emerging trends are expected. USEFUL REFERENCES 12. Please identify any useful works of reference relating to copyright law and copyright litigation in your country.1. 11.
30
.

• the Patent and Trademark Office (IMPI).
Legislation and enforcement 1. • the Federal Penal Code 1931 and amendments of 1996. Agency 3. Who enforces it? Copyright enforcers include: • the Copyright Office (INDAUTOR). and • the Federal Code of Penal Proceedings 1931.
31
. • the Industrial Property Act 1991 and reforms of 1994. • the 1998 Regulations to the Copyright Act. • the Federal Code of Civil Proceedings 1943. and • the General Attorney’s Office. What is the relevant legislation? The legislation affecting copyright in Mexico includes: • the Copyright Act 1996. • the Federal Code of Administrative Proceedings 1994 and subsequent amendments. contracts and related documentation. Is there a centralised copyright agency? What does this agency do? The Copyright Office is in charge of: • registering works of authorship. 2.Copyright 2010.COPYRIGHTS 2010 Getting the Deal Through .LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT. • the civil and commercial courts.

• photographic works. • computer programs. What types of works are copyrightable? The following types of works are copyrightable: • literary. Subject matter and scope of copyright 4. • sculpture or plastic work. • providing the legal means for enforcing certain forms of copyright infringement. • dance. • architectural. • documenting collection management organisations that have met the legal requirements to operate by collecting from users of works. and
32
. characters or names of artists. • caricature and cartoons. • ‘reservas’ to protect titles. and • acting as a conciliator for disputes through special proceedings. • musical (with or without lyrics).• organising and maintaining the copyright register. • radio and television programmes. • pictorial or drawing. • acting as an arbitral institution regarding disputes on copyright and neighbouring rights. • decorative art works which include graphic and textile design. • dramatic. • cinematographic and other audio-visual works.

symbols or emblems of international government organisations. or any government or other organisation officially recognised. • reproduction or imitations. but only if such works are considered to be an intellectual creation. public performance and transformation). • letters.
33
. ownership and integrity). • schemes. What types of rights are covered by copyright? The following types of rights are covered by copyright: • patrimonial rights (ie.• compilations such as encyclopedias. and other works such as databases. anthologies. solutions. • names and titles or isolated phrases. discoveries. flags or emblems of any country. initials. and • remuneration rights (ie. principles. distribution. What may not be protected by copyright? The following may not be protected by copyright: • ideas. concepts. as well as the verbal description of them. except where they are stylized to such an extent that they become original designs. methods. the resale right known as droit de suite. exploitation of audio-visual works. • industrial or commercial exploitation of the ideas contained in works. reproduction. digits or isolated colours. state. as well as their instructions. without authorisation. of shields. • blank formats or formulae containing any type of information. processes or inventions of any kind. systems. plans or rules for the making of mental acts. and public performance of works of authorship when patrimonial rights have been assigned). denominations. formulae. 5. games or business. • moral rights (ie. 6. municipality or equivalent political division.

illustrations and comment referring to current events. • reproduction of parts of the work for the purposes of scientific. • reproduction of articles. published in the press or communicated by radio or television. • reproduction for use as evidence in judicial or administrative proceedings. The comparable provisions for copyright limitations are as follows: Limitations for reproduction rights Limitations for reproductive rights cover: • quotation of texts.• legislative. • reproduction of a literary or artistic work. and • information in common use such as proverbs. calendars and metric scales. facts. literary or artistic criticism or research. if this has not been expressly prohibited by the owner of the rights. and without a financial purpose. and
34
. if the work is out of circulation. • production of a single copy by an archive or a library. Do the doctrines of ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’ exist ? The doctrines of ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’ do not exist as such in Mexican law. photographs. provided that the amount quoted is not considered to be a simulated and substantial reproduction of the contents of the work. Legal entities may not benefit from this provision unless they are an educational or research establishment or their work is not for commercial purposes. 7. as well as their official translations. • informative content of news. regulatory. or any other medium of communication. legends. for the personal and private use of the person doing it. no longer catalogued and there is a possibility that it will disappear. for reasons of security and preservation. administrative or judicial texts. in a single copy. sayings.

photographs and audio-visual means. and • only brief fragments are used as information for current events. paintings.• reproduction. • for the purposes of the recording. Limitations for public performance and other rights Limitations for public performance cover use of literary and artistic works in shops or establishments open to the public. but he or she shall have the right to prohibit his or her name from being associated with the altered work. and • the recording may only be broadcast once. Ephemeral recordings are subject to the following conditions: • transmission shall take place within an agreed period. it will not be possible to make a related or simultaneous broadcast or communication. recordings or broadcasts. audio and video producers. provided that there is no admission fee and that the performance does not extend outside the place where the sale is made and serves the sole purpose of promoting the sale of copies of the works. Architectural works and works of applied art The author of a work of architecture may not prevent the owner of the said work from making alterations.
35
. interpreters and performers. when such works are reproduced. Other The rights of artists. trading copies of the said works. are not infringed by the use of their acts. or broadcasting organisations. paintings. communication and distribution by means of drawings. communicated and distributed by drawings. photographs and audio-visual processes of works that are on display or visible in public places. visible from public places provided that: • no direct economic advantage is pursued.

the author will have the right to refuse his or her name being associated with the modified work. book publishers and video producers are entitled to related rights as well. In addition. they may also be a remuneration right. However. Are architectural works protected by copyright? How? Architectural works are copyrightable under the law. pledged or transmitted and that are imprescriptible. Are other ‘neighbouring rights’ recognised? How? Mexico is a member of the Rome Convention and accordingly protects the rights of artistic performers. What are the consequences for failure to display a copyright notice?
36
. 14.8. Moral rights are personal rights that cannot be renounced. Limitations are listed and interpreted literally. Are performance rights covered by copyright? How? Public performance rights are covered by the Copyright Act. 11. The architectural works protected include all aspects that can be attributed as original to the author or architect designer. 12. and if transferred. 9. audio recording producers and broadcast entities. 10. Are moral rights recognised? The Copyright Act protects moral rights of paternity. Copyright formalities 13. What are the standards used in determining whether a particular use is fair? The law does not define any standards to determine fair use. They are part of the bundle of patrimonial copyright rights. The law imposes one restriction: the author of an architectural work may not prevent the owner of the physical construction from making modifications to it. Plans are protected together with the physical constructions arising from the plans. integrity. divulgation and withdrawal. Is there a requirement of copyright notice? There is no requirement of copyright notice.

Is copyright registration mandatory? Copyright registration is not mandatory. a person must file a simple application with two samples of the work and a fee. 18.There are no consequences for failure to display a copyright notice although the copyright law indicates that some sort of administrative infringements could arise. Is there a requirement of copyright deposit? There is no requirement of copyright deposit. 19. Is there a system for copyright registration? Works can be registered with the Copyright Office. However. Ownership in copyright disputes can be proved by documentary or other evidence showing that the author created the work.
37
. What are the consequences for failure to make a copyright deposit? There are no consequences for failure to make a copyright notice. 17. What are the copyrighted work? consequences for failure to register a
There are no consequences for failure to register a copyrighted work. Ownership in copyright disputes may be proved by something else showing that the author created the work. 21. 20. Registration is not compulsory and copyright protection does not depend on registration. registration can represent reliable evidence in court since it represents prima facie evidence of copyright ownership. Particular information about contributors or creators is normally requested by the Copyright Office for commissioned works. How do you apply for a copyright registration? To register a copyright. What are the fees to apply for a copyright registration? The application fee for copyright registration is approximately US$13. 16. 15.

If parties have not signed a labour agreement. 24. Requirements are less strict than in the case of an employee’s works. and • audio-visual works – the law regards the producer as the copyright owner. May a hiring party own a copyrighted work made by an independent contractor? A hiring party may own the rights on a copyrighted work made by an independent contractor. copyright ownership shall revert to the party that hired the work. Exceptions include: • commissioned works – the entity asking for the work becomes the owner ab initio. 23. May a copyrighted work be co-owned? Works can be co-authored if they are jointly created by two or more authors. It would be sufficient to show that a work has been commissioned and that there has been remuneration. 25. May an employer own a copyrighted work made by an employee? Copyright ownership shall vest in the employer when parties have executed a labour agreement in writing and the same has a special work-for-hire clause. copyright shall be split in equal shares. If the two conditions are met.Ownership and transfer 22. or else co-owned. Who is the owner of a copyrighted work? Generally. If the parties have signed a labour agreement without this special clause. to distinguish between ‘collaborative’ works (authored jointly by two or more individuals) and ‘collective’ works (authored jointly by two or more individuals under the initiative of another individual or a
38
. rights shall vest in the employee. The Copyright Law sets forth rules in connection with the coauthorship of works. an author would be the first owner of the copyrighted work.

May rights be transferred? Patrimonial rights can be transferred. May rights be licensed? Patrimonial rights may be licensed. 29. 26. may be the subject of a compulsory licence. Under the law.corporation). but has never been done and a system would need to be put in place to do it. Are there compulsory licences? What are they? The publication and translation of literary or artistic works. Generally. the Copyright Law sets forth rules in connection with coownership of works. 27. A transfer in excess of 15 years is only valid in particular circumstances relating to the investment in the production of a work. whether by authorship or work for hire or ownership by transfer. Transfers are only valid for periods ranging between five and 15 years. licences are administered by the copyright or related rightsholders. physical individuals or corporations can be patrimonial rightsowners or co-owners. Likewise. 30. Rules state as well that the rights of co-authors shall be shared in equal parts unless otherwise agreed. Performing rights societies can administer them if copyright or related rightsholders become members thereof and grant a formal mandate to them to collect royalties or remuneration from users. including initial ownership rules. This process is theoretically possible. In keeping with this. which are required for the development of science and culture and national education. transfers are not permanent. transfers are temporary and are subject to certain rules. Is there any provision for the termination of transfers of rights? There is provision for the termination of the transfer of copyright rights. The law provides for limitations on transfers. by virtue of licences or otherwise.
39
. Are licences administered by performing rights societies? How? In principle. 28.

When does copyright protection begin? Copyright protection begins from the moment the work is created. • infringement by the licensee of the terms of the compulsory licensing that would have been declared in article 146 of the Copyright Act. entrepreneur. Copyright infringement and remedies 36. broadcasting organization or licensee entering into a contract with the objective of transmitting copyright in violation of the present law. producer.
40
. How long does copyright protection last? Protection for patrimonial rights lasts throughout the lifetime of the author (or contributor) and for 100 years following the author’s death. 33. What constitutes copyright infringement? The law categorises infringement into the following: Copyright infringements The following behaviour constitutes an infringement of copyright: • an editor.31. Does copyright duration depend on when a particular work was created or published? Copyright duration depends on when the work was authored and fixed into a tangible form of expression. Duration of copyright 32. Do terms of copyright have to be renewed? How? Terms of copyright do not have to be renewed. 35. employer. Can documents evidencing transfers and other transactions be recorded with a government agency? Documents evidencing transfers and other transactions can be recorded with the Copyright Office by way of an application or request. 34.

adapter or arranger. without mentioning the community or ethnicity. without mentioning in it the name of the author. while being authorized to do so. compiler. a literary and artistic work. compiler. • falsely omitting or inserting the data referred to in the law in an edition. • publishing works performed in official service without authorization of the federation. protected in the law. • publishing a work. which damages the reputation of the author as such and.• presenting oneself as a collective representation society without having obtained the corresponding registration with the Copyright Office. • not inserting in a published work the requirements referred to in the law. or the region of Mexico where it originates. publishing or performing any communication or using in any form. • fixing. if applicable. • publishing a work. of the translator. states or municipality. • falsely omitting or inserting the requirements referred to in the law in an edition. • not inserting in an audio recording the requirements referred to in the law. arranger or adapter. • using fraudulently in a work a title that induces confusion with another work published earlier. while being authorized to do so. representing. translator. and • any other infringement derived from the interpretation of the Copyright Act and its rules. Commercial copyright infringements
41
. • being the administrator of a collective representation society and failing without just cause to provide the Copyright Office with the reports and documents referred to in the law.

distributing. • using the image of a person without his or her authorization or that of his or her successors. protected by copyright or related rights.
42
. or books. reproducing and disseminating to the public the programmes of a broadcasting organization without the organization’s authorization. • producing. • offering for sale. denomination. reproducing.The following behaviour constitutes an infringement in trade when performed with direct or indirect commercial purposes: • communicating or publicly using a work protected by any means and in any form without the previous and explicit authorization of the author. reproducing or exploiting a protected reservation of rights or a computer program without the consent of the holder. • rebroadcasting. physical or psychological characteristics or operation characteristics in such a way that they induce error or confusion with a protected reservation of rights. modified or mutilated without authorization of the holder of the copyright. audio or video recordings. transporting or commercialising copies of works. • using or exploiting a name. • using literary and artistic works protected by chapter III. their legitimate heirs or the holder of the author’s proprietary equity. • importing. title. and • all other infringements as provided for by the law that imply a commercial or industrial behaviour relating to the works protected by this law. transporting or making available works protected by this law that have been deformed. storing. storing. leasing or performing any act that allows or facilitates possession of a device or system the purpose of which is to deactivate the protective electronic devices of a computer program. selling. without the authorization of the respective holders in terms of this law. fixing. title VII of the Copyright Law in violation of that contained in article 158. • using.

P2P service providers do not supply to the public anything like that. Federal Penal Law). By contrast. However. the intermediary and not only the public at large can be directly liable for copyright infringement. Under the Penal Code. For example. Federal Penal Code). the Penal Code recognizes specific secondary liability when third parties supply the ‘raw materials’ or ‘consumables’ for reproducing works (article 424 bis(1). Likewise. they seem not to be required to adopt policy rules to prevent their subscribers to respect IP rights. third parties unrelated to copyright holders would not be hold secondarily liable for inducing others to commit infringement. site operators and service providers cannot take any defensive position against infringement claims by copyright holders. second paragraph. In the end. However. copyright holders might not need to invoke indirect or secondary liability indeed. making it difficult for them to be regarded secondary infringers. Mexican laws do not recognize the theories of contributory infringement or vicarious liability as such. hosting or search engine arguments. since under the Copyright Law plaintiffs can support their copyright infringement claims on direct infringement of rights. Likewise. based on mere conduit. 38. Criminal laws provide rules that can only be proximate to contributory infringement.
43
. to the extent that it could be questioned if the Berne and WCT/WPPT three-step rule is materially applicable. caching. What remedies are available against a copyright infringer? The following remedies are available for copyright infringement: • injunctive relief. Does secondary liability exist for indirect infringement? What actions incur such liability?
copyright
The Copyright Law of Mexico does not safe harbour site operators and service providers for any of their online intermediary communication and reproduction activities. namely public performance and making available rights. the Federal Penal Code gives the circumstances under which anybody can participate in crimes. Accordingly. they are restricted to situations when participants knowingly take positive steps to assist who has ultimately perpetrated the crime (article 13. the law dictates that exceptions to patrimonial rights shall be viewed literally and narrowly.37.

in a
44
. • an editor. Up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine will be imposed on: • any person that produces. • civil remedies (damages). 40. The applicable rule is that 40 per cent of the value of the infringing products will be awarded. with commercial purposes and without the corresponding authorization. producer or recorder that knowingly produces more copies of a work protected by federal copyright law than authorized by the holder of the rights. will be imposed on: • any person that deals in any form with free textbooks distributed by the Public Education Department. and • criminal sanctions (imprisonment or fines). or • any person that uses in a fraudulent manner. audio or video recordings. 42. introduces to the country. The 40 per cent rule represents a minimum standard provision.• administrative orders (time. reproduces. 41. Is there a time limit for seeking remedies? There is a statute of limitations for civil and criminal remedies. stores. works protected by federal copyright law. sells or leases copies of works. Are there criminal copyright provisions? What are they? Imprisonment of between six months and six years. distributes. Are monetary damages available for copyright infringement? Monetary damages are available for copyright infringement. or books protected by federal copyright law. Can attorneys’ fees and costs be claimed in an action for copyright infringement? Attorneys’ fees and costs are available for copyright infringement but they are seldom recovered. shutdown of establishments or premises). 39. and a fine. transports.

will be imposed on any person that sells copies of works. the infringer will be subject to sanction under the penal code. Imprisonment of between six months and six years. or books referred to in the previous paragraph. Likewise the principles
45
. The law provides copyright owners with a general right to pursue infringers regardless of the medium they employ. and • any person that performs any act for commercial purposes with the intention of decoding a coded satellite signal or programme carrier. without authorization of the legitimate distributor of said signal. exploits an artistic performance for commercial purposes.fraudulent way. and a fine. knowingly and without right. Although not expressly provided for in the law. If the sale takes place in a commercial establishment or in a permanent and organized manner. sells or leases a device or system to decode a coded satellite signal or programme-carrier. 43. for commercial purposes. audio or video recordings. without authorization of the legitimate distributor of said signal. and a fine will be imposed on: • any person that manufactures. • any person that knowingly contributes in any way to or provides raw materials or consumables destined for the production or reproduction of works. Imprisonment of between six months and four years. or a fine will be imposed on whoever. or • any person that manufactures for commercial purposes a device or system whose purpose is to deactivate the protective electronic devices of a computer program. and without the authorization from the holder of the copyright or related rights. audio or video recordings or books to any final consumer in a public place and in a fraudulent manner for commercial purposes. Is online copyright infringement actionable? Methods exist for pursuing online copyright infringement. imports. the internet is certainly included. Imprisonment of between six months and two years.

etc. For example. In general terms. treaty provisions are valid to fill the gaps in local law. 46. national treatment. What obligations are imposed by your country’s membership of international copyright conventions? The nature of the obligations imposed depends on the type of treaty. minimum standards. How may copyright infringement be prevented? Copyright infringement is always hard to prevent. However. including a right of access and the redefinition of the terms ‘fixation’ and ‘reproduction’ in a digital environment. treaties are self-applicable under the Mexican Constitution and would not strictly require implementation. the bill very broadly advocates for levies for the manufacture and sale (including importation or other sorts of
46
. has implemented them into domestic law. a treaty may be based on the principles of reciprocity. Update and trends Bill to amend the Copyright Law to introduce a private copy levy system The bill was filed on 27 April 2010 and published in the gazette of the House of Representatives (in Mexico called the Chamber of Deputies). Relationship to foreign rights 45. In any event.of the WIPO treaties. in particular on free trade and those dealing with copyright and neighbouring rights issues. Mexico has executed copyright treaties without reservation or restrictions and. on the whole. It is also a member of a number of bilateral agreements. Which international copyright conventions does your country belong to? Mexico belongs to most multinational treaties on copyright and neighbouring rights. Treaty provisions prevail in the event of conflict with provisions in local laws. Accordingly. 44. copyright law recognizes and protects against infringements relating to technology protection. have been implemented in law.

As with the private copy bill. this bill has been planned for review and discussion by the Chamber of Deputies in September this year.distribution) of media used for reproducing copyrighted works. instead of creating a body similar to French HADOPI. Their position is awaited. However. as the Spanish statute has proved to have according to the opinion of the general attorney of the European Tribunal in SGAE v Padawan).
47
. As in France. Bill to amend the Copyright Law to introduce a regime to prevent illegal copying on the internet This bill was also filed and published on 27 April 2010. not to say the large ISP Mexican and international corporations established in Mexico. It has been planned for analysis and discussion by the Chamber of Deputies in September this year. The bill triggered immediate response and opposition by the electronic and computer industries as well by consumer groups and society at large. The system has been clearly inspired by the German/Spanish theory of copyright compensation for authors and in some way has been backed by the European Copyright Directive (there are fundamental differences though. The purpose of the bill is to implement a three-strikes system that resembles HADOPI 2. it has empowered IMPI (Mexican Institute of Industrial Property) with competence to request ISPs to render warnings to customers that allegedly infringe copyright rights by copying works or making them available to the public on the internet. The bill proposes collecting societies with the right to collect the levy from the manufacturers or distributors for distribution among copyright and neighbouring right holders. Every other provision in the bill essentially repeats HADOPI 2. which includes Carlos Slim’s Telmex. the Mexican bill has immediately attracted the attention of internet groups.

what does this agency do? The Copyright Office is in charge of:
•
registering works documentation. What is the relevant legislation? The legislation affecting copyright in Mexico includes:
• • • • •
the Copyright Act 1996. the Patent and Trademark Office (IMPI). the civil and commercial courts.
2.
contracts
and
related
48
. the Industrial Property Act 1991 and reforms of 1994.
Agency 3. Who enforces it? Copyright legislation is enforced by:
• • • •
the Copyright Office (INDAUTOR).COPYRIGHTS 2008. Proceedings 1994 and
• •
the Federal Code of Civil Proceedings 1943. Is there a centralised copyright agency? If so.Copyrights 2008.
Legislation and enforcement 1. the 1998 Regulations to the Copyright Act.
of
authorship. and the Federal Code of Penal Proceedings 1931.LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT. the Federal Code of Administrative subsequent amendments. Getting the Deal Through . the Federal Penal Code 1931 and amendments of 1996. and the General Attorney’s Office.

documenting collection management organisations that have met the legal requirements to operate by collecting from users of works. acting as an arbitral institution regarding disputes on copyright and neighbouring rights. dance. characters or names of artists. pictorial or drawing. musical (with or without lyrics). computer programs. decorative art works which include graphic and textile design. providing the legal means for enforcing certain forms of copyright infringement.• •
organising and maintaining the copyright register. sculpture or plastic work. dramatic. caricature and cartoons. cinematographic and other audio-visual works. and acting as a conciliator for disputes through special proceedings. radio and television programmes. architectural.
• •
•
•
Subject matter and scope of copyright 4. and
49
. photographic works. ‘reservas’ to protect titles. What types of works are copyrightable? The following types of works are copyrightable:
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
literary.

solutions. formulae. without authorisation. What may not be protected by copyright? The following may not be protected by copyright:
•
ideas. games or business. names and titles or isolated phrases. discoveries.
public
• •
moral rights (ie. except where they are stylized to such an extent that they become original designs. anthologies. processes or inventions of any kind. digits or isolated colours. industrial or commercial exploitation of the ideas contained in works. flags or emblems of any country. symbols or emblems of international government organisations. and public performance of works of authorship when patrimonial rights have been assigned). and other works such as databases. as well as the verbal description of them. denominations. letters. reproduction or imitations.•
compilations such as encyclopedias. but only if such works are considered to be an intellectual creation.
50
•
•
•
• •
•
. of shields. methods. exploitation of audio-visual works. as well as their instructions.
distribution. systems. state. ownership and integrity). plans or rules for the making of mental acts. municipality or equivalent political division. performance and transformation). blank formats or formulae containing any type of information. schemes. initials. or any government or other organisation officially recognised. principles. What types of rights are covered by copyright? The following types of rights are covered by copyright:
•
patrimonial rights (ie.
6.
5. reproduction. concepts. the resale right known as droit de suite. and remuneration rights (ie.

•
legislative. for the personal and private use of the person doing it. The doctrines of ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’ do not exist as such in Mexican law. legends. regulatory. illustrations and comment referring to current events. reproduction of articles. Do the doctrines of ‘fair use’ or ‘fair dealing’ exist? If so. administrative or judicial texts. literary or artistic criticism or research. please describe. reproduction of a literary or artistic work. no longer catalogued and there is a possibility that it will disappear. production of a single copy by an archive or a library. Legal entities may not benefit from this provision unless they are an educational or research establishment or their work is not for commercial purposes. reproduction of parts of the work for the purposes of scientific. The comparable provisions for copyright limitations are as follows: Limitations for reproduction rights
•
quotation of texts. sayings. informative content of news. or any other medium of communication.
• •
7. if the work is out of circulation. in a single copy. photographs. and information in common use such as proverbs. reproduction for use as evidence in judicial or administrative proceedings. please describe any comparable limitations. and without a financial purpose. If not. if this has not been expressly prohibited by the owner of the rights. provided that the amount quoted is not considered to be a simulated and substantial reproduction of the contents of the work. published in the press or communicated by radio or television. calendars and metric scales. facts. for reasons of security and preservation. and
•
•
•
•
•
51
. as well as their official translations.

audio and video producers. communication and distribution by means of drawings. photographs and audio-visual means.
Limitations for public performance and other rights
•
Use of literary and artistic works in shops or establishments open to the public.•
reproduction. interpreters and performers. photographs and audio-visual processes of works that are on display or visible in public places. communicated and distributed by drawings. What are the standards used in determining whether a particular use is fair? The law does not define any standards to determine fair use.
52
. Ephemeral recordings are subject to the following conditions: transmission shall take place within an agreed period. paintings. are not infringed by the use of their acts.
8. paintings. recordings or broadcasts. and only brief fragments are used as information for current events. Other The rights of artists. and the recording may only be broadcast once. or broadcasting organisations. it will not be possible to make a related or simultaneous broadcast or communication. visible from public places provided that:
• •
no direct economic advantage is pursued. when such works are reproduced. but he or she shall have the right to prohibit his or her name from being associated with the altered work. for the purposes of the recording.
• • •
•
Architectural works and works of applied art The author of a work of architecture may not prevent the owner of the said work from making alterations. trading copies of the said works. provided that there is no admission fee and that the performance does not extend outside the place where the sale is made and serves the sole purpose of promoting the sale of copies of the works.

divulgation and withdrawal. audio recording producers and broadcast entities. please describe? The Copyright Act protects moral rights of paternity. Plans are protected together with the physical constructions arising from the plans. Moral rights are personal rights that cannot be renounced. 12. Copyright formalities 13. Are moral rights (droit moral) recognised? If so. they may also be a remuneration right. However. Are architectural works protected by copyright? How? Architectural works are copyrightable under the law. In addition. how? Mexico is a member of the Rome Convention and accordingly protects the rights of artistic performers. 10. The architectural works protected include all aspects that can be attributed as original to the author or architect designer. The law imposes one restriction: the author of an architectural work may not prevent the owner of the physical construction from making modifications to it. Is there a requirement of copyright notice? If so.Limitations are listed and interpreted literally. book publishers and video producers are entitled to related rights as well.
53
. Are ‘neighbouring rights’ recognised? If so. please describe. 11. They are part of the bundle of patrimonial copyright rights. the author will have the right to refuse his or her name being associated with the modified work. 9. and if transferred. pledged or transmitted and that are imprescriptible. Are performance rights covered by copyright? If so. integrity. There is no requirement of copyright notice. how? Public performance rights are covered by the Copyright Act.

There is no requirement of copyright deposit. Ownership in copyright disputes can be proved by documentary or other evidence showing that the author created the work. Copyright registration is not mandatory. 16. 20. What are the consequences for failure to display a copyright notice? There are no consequences for failure to display a copyright notice although the copyright law indicates that some sort of administrative infringements could arise. a person must file a simple application with two samples of the work and a fee. What are the fees to apply for a copyright registration? The application fee for copyright registration is approximately US$13. Registration is not compulsory and copyright protection does not depend on registration. How do you apply for a copyright registration? To register a copyright. please describe.14.
54
. Is copyright registration mandatory? If so. Is there a requirement of copyright deposit? If so. please describe. 18. 19. Particular information about contributors or creators is normally requested by the Copyright Office for commissioned works. 17. please describe. registration can represent reliable evidence in court since it represents prima facie evidence of copyright ownership. However. 15. Works can be registered with the Copyright Office. Is there a system for copyright registration? If so. What are the consequences for failure to make a copyright deposit? There are no consequences for failure to make a copyright notice.

in what circumstances? A hiring party may own the rights on a copyrighted work made by an independent contractor. copyright shall be split in equal shares. If the parties have signed a labour agreement without this special clause. and.
•
23. It would be sufficient to show that a work has been commissioned and that there has been remuneration. Who is the owner of a copyrighted work? Generally. Ownership in copyright disputes may be proved by something else showing that the author created the work. copyright ownership shall revert to the party that hired the work. Ownership and transfer 22. if so. Exceptions include:
•
commissioned works – the entity asking for the work becomes the owner ab initio. What are the copyrighted work?
consequences
for
failure
to
register
a
There are no consequences for failure to register a copyrighted work. Requirements are less strict than in the case of an employee’s works.21. an author would be the first owner of the copyrighted work. and in what circumstances? Copyright ownership shall vest in the employer when parties have executed a labour agreement in writing and the same has a special work-for-hire clause. May a hiring party own a copyrighted work made by an independent contractor. 24. If the two conditions are met. rights shall vest in the employee. If parties have not signed a labour agreement. May an employer own a copyrighted work made by an employee.
55
. and audio-visual works – the law regards the producer as the copyright owner.

Performing rights societies can administer them if copyright or related rights-holders become members thereof and grant a formal
56
. This process is theoretically possible. 27. 29. Generally. physical individuals or corporations can be patrimonial rightsowners or co-owners. including initial ownership rules. 26. May rights be transferred? In what circumstances? Patrimonial rights can be transferred. 28. transfers are not permanent. Are there compulsory licensed? What are they? The publication and translation of literary or artistic works. May a copyrighted work be co-owned? If so. whether by authorship or work for hire or ownership by transfer. but has never been done and a system would need to be put in place to do it. In keeping with this. Rules state as well that the rights of co-authors shall be shared in equal parts unless otherwise agreed. or else co-owned. May rights be licensed? Patrimonial rights may be licensed. the Copyright Law sets forth rules in connection with coownership of works. The law provides for limitations on transfers. Are licences administered by performing rights societies? If so. how? In principle. to distinguish between ‘collaborative’ works (authored jointly by two or more individuals) and ‘collective’ works (authored jointly by two or more individuals under the initiative of another individual or a corporation). The Copyright Law sets forth rules in connection with the co-authorship of works. licences are administered by the copyright or related rightsholders. in what circumstances? Works can be co-authored if they are jointly created by two or more authors.25. may be the subject of a compulsory licence. which are required for the development of science and culture and national education. Likewise.

mandate to them to collect royalties or remuneration from users. What constitutes copyright infringement? The law categorises infringement into the following:
57
. Does copyright duration depend on when a particular work was created or published? Copyright duration depends on when the work was authored and fixed into a tangible form of expression. transfers are temporary and are subject to certain rules. Duration of copyright 32. 35. with which agency and how? Documents evidencing transfers and other transactions can be recorded with the Copyright Office by way of an application or request. Transfers are only valid for periods ranging between five and 15 years. 31. by virtue of licences or otherwise. Do terms of copyright have to be renewed? How? Terms of copyright do not have to be renewed. 34. 33. A transfer in excess of 15 years is only valid in particular circumstances relating to the investment in the production of a work. How long does copyright protection last? Protection for patrimonial rights lasts throughout the lifetime of the author (or contributor) and for 100 years following the author’s death. Can documents evidencing transfers and other transactions be recorded with a government agency? If so. Copyright infringement and remedies 36. When does copyright protection begin? Copyright protection begins from the moment the work is created. 30. Under the law. Is there any provision for the termination of transfers of rights? There is provision for the termination of the transfer of copyright rights.

translator. falsely omitting or inserting the data referred to in law in an edition. producer. not inserting in a published work the requirements referred to in law. compiler. entrepreneur. publishing works performed in official service without authorisation of the federation. adapter or arranger. infringement by the licensee of the terms of the compulsory licensing that would have been declared in article 146 of the present law. while being authorised to do so. presenting oneself as a collective representation society without having obtained the corresponding registration with the Copyright Office. without mentioning in it the name of the author. which damages the reputation of the author as such and.Copyright infringements The following behaviour constitutes an infringement of copyright:
•
an editor. of the translator. if applicable.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
58
. publishing a work. publishing a work. falsely omitting or inserting the requirements referred to in law in an edition. arranger or adapter. employer. while being authorised to do so. being the administrator of a collective representation society and failing without just cause to provide the Copyright Office with the reports and documents referred to in law. broadcasting organisation or licensee entering into a contract with the objective of transmitting copyright in violation of the present law. states or municipality. compiler. not inserting in an audio recording the requirements referred to in law.

importing. without mentioning the community or ethnicity. rebroadcasting. producing. a literary and artistic work. storing. audio or video recordings. without the authorisation of the respective holders in terms of this law. or books. protected by copyright or related rights. modified or mutilated without authorisation of the holder of the copyright. storing. reproducing. reproducing and disseminating to the public the programmes of a broadcasting organisation without the organisation’s authorisation. fixing. and any other infringement derived from the interpretation of the Copyright Act and its rules. selling.•
using fraudulently in a work a title that induces confusion with another work published earlier. fixing. transporting or commercialising copies of works. transporting or making available works protected by this law that have been deformed. representing.
•
•
Commercial copyright infringements The following behaviour constitutes an infringement in trade when performed with direct or indirect commercial purposes:
•
communicating or publicly using a work protected by any means and in any form without the previous and explicit authorisation of the author. leasing or performing any act that allows or facilitates possession of a device or system the purpose of which is to deactivate the protective electronic devices of a computer program. or the region of Mexico where it originates. offering for sale. their legitimate heirs or the holder of the author’s proprietary equity.
•
•
•
•
•
59
. distributing. publishing or performing any communication or using in any form. using the image of a person without his or her authorisation or that of his or her successors. protected in the law.

denomination. shutdown of establishments or
• •
civil remedies (damages). and all other infringements as provided for by the law that imply a commercial or industrial behaviour relating to the works protected by this law. 39. physical or psychological characteristics or operation characteristics in such a way that they induce error or confusion with a protected reservation of rights. administrative premises). title. reproducing or exploiting a protected reservation of rights or a computer program without the consent of the holder.
•
•
•
37. What remedies are available against a copyright infringer? The following remedies are available for copyright infringement:
• •
injunctive relief. using or exploiting a name.
60
. The 40 per cent rule represents a minimum standard provision. orders (time. Is there a time limit for seeking remedies? There is a statute of limitations for civil and criminal remedies. The applicable rule is that 40 per cent of the value of the infringing products will be awarded. Are monetary damages available for copyright infringement? Monetary damages are available for copyright infringement.
38. title VII of the Copyright Law in violation of that contained in article 158. using literary and artistic works protected by chapter III. and criminal sanctions (imprisonment or fines).•
using.

or any person that manufactures for commercial purposes a device or system whose purpose is to deactivate the protective electronic devices of a computer program. distributes. Are there criminal copyright provisions? What are they? Imprisonment of between six months and six years. Are attorneys’ fees and costs infringement? In what circumstances?
available
for
copyright
Attorneys’ fees and costs are available for copyright infringement but they are seldom recovered. audio or video recordings or books to any final consumer in a public place and in a
61
. audio or video recordings. transports. for commercial purposes. and without the authorisation from the holder of the copyright or related rights. and a fine.40. introduces to the country. in a fraudulent way. reproduces.
•
•
• •
•
•
Imprisonment of between six months and six years. or books referred to in the previous paragraph. an editor. works protected by federal copyright law. and a fine. Up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine will be imposed on: any person that produces. audio or video recordings. will be imposed on any person that sells copies of works. with commercial purposes and without the corresponding authorisation. stores. or books protected by federal copyright law. or any person that uses in a fraudulent manner. will be imposed on:
•
any person that deals in any form with free textbooks distributed by the Public Education Department. any person that knowingly contributes in any way to or provides raw materials or consumables destined for the production or reproduction of works. producer or recorder that knowingly produces more copies of a work protected by federal copyright law than authorised by the holder of the rights. 41. sells or leases copies of works.

However. The law provides copyright owners with a general right to pursue infringers regardless of the medium they employ. exploits an artistic performance for commercial purposes. and any person that performs any act for commercial purposes with the intention of decoding a coded satellite signal or programmecarrier. copyright law recognises and protects against infringements relating to technology protection. 43. knowingly and without right. and a fine will be imposed on:
•
any person that manufactures. the infringer will be subject to sanction under the penal code. including a right of access and the redefinition of the terms ‘fixation’ and ‘reproduction’ in a digital environment. How may copyright infringement be prevented? Copyright infringement is always hard to prevent. If the sale takes place in a commercial establishment or in a permanent and organised manner. without authorisation of the legitimate distributor of said signal. or a fine will be imposed on whoever.fraudulent manner for commercial purposes. Imprisonment of between six months and four years. sells or leases a device or system to decode a coded satellite signal or programme carrier. Is online copyright infringement actionable? Methods exist for pursuing online copyright infringement.
62
. have been implemented in law. Likewise the principles of the WIPO treaties. without authorisation of the legitimate distributor of said signal. imports. Although not expressly provided for in the law.
•
42. Imprisonment of between six months and two years. the internet is certainly included.

Update and trends Ongoing litigation has raised a number of questions:
•
The issue of distribution. Which international copyright conventions does your country belong to? Mexico belongs to most multinational treaties on copyright and neighbouring rights. What obligations are imposed by your country’s membership of international copyright conventions? The nature of the obligations imposed depends on the type of treaty. treaty provisions are valid to fill the gaps in local law. The question is when distribution rights become exhausted and if rental rights exist at all. on the whole. minimum standards. Mexico has executed copyright treaties without reservation or restrictions and. treaties are self-applicable under the Mexican Constitution and would not strictly require implementation. In any event.
•
63
. For example. 45. a treaty may be based on the principles of reciprocity. and in particular rental rights in audio-visual works. has been tested before the Mexican courts. in particular on free trade and those dealing with copyright and neighbouring rights issues. Accordingly.Relationship to foreign rights 44. has implemented them into domestic law. It is also a member of a number of bilateral agreements. and to collect royalties from them. Treaty provisions prevail in the event of conflict with provisions in local laws. etc. The power and capacity of performance or collecting societies has been challenged. in cases where they might have not fulfilled the requirements and formalities that they need to comply with to be able to represent copyright or related rights-owners with the users of works. national treatment.

LEGISLATION AND ENFORCEMENT . • the Federal Code of Administrative Proceedings 1994 and subsequent amendments. • organising and maintaining the copyright registry. and • the Federal Penal Code 1931 and amendments of 1996. INDAUTOR). IMPI).
64
. what does this agency do? The Copyright Office is in charge of: • registering works of authorship.COPYRIGHT 2006 Getting the Deal Through . Legislation and enforcement 1 What is the relevant legislation? The legislation affecting copyright law in Mexico includes: • the Copyright Act 1996. contracts and related documentation. 2 Who enforces it? Copyright legislation is enforced by: • the Copyright Office (Instituto Nacional del Derecho de Autor. • the Industrial Property Act 1991 and reforms of 1994. Agency 3 Is there a centralised copyright agency? if so.Copyright 2006. • the Patent and Trademark Office (Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial. • the civil and commercial courts. • the 1998 Regulations to the Copyright Act. • making inscriptions of collecting societies. and • the General Attorney's Office.

• decorative art works which include graphic and textile design. but only if such works are considered to be an intellectual creation. Subject matter and scope of copyright 4 What types of works are copyrightable? The following types of works are copyrightable: • literary. and other works such as databases. • cinematographic and other audio-visual works.• granting so-called 'reserves' and providing the legal means for their cancellation. • caricature and cartoons. • dance. • architectural. and • acting as a conciliator for disputes through special proceedings. • photographic. • pictorial or drawing. • acting as an arbitral institution regarding disputes on copyright and neighbouring rights. • dramatic. • providing the legal means for enforcing certain forms of copyright infringement. • computer programs. • radio and television programmes.
65
. and • compilations such as encyclopedias. • sculpture or plastic work. anthologies. • musical (with or without lyrics).

as well as their instructions. discoveries. principles. • names and titles or isolated phrases.5 What types of rights are covered by copyright? The following types of rights are covered by copyright: • patrimonial rights (ie. • informative content of news. reproduction. municipality or equivalent political division. ownership and integrity). • schemes. • legislative. digits or isolated colours. formulae. and • remuneration rights in limited situations (ie. public performance and transformation). distribution. without authorisation. • blank formats or formulas containing any type of information. processes or inventions of any kind. as well as their official translations. as well as the verbal description of them. the re-sale right known as `droit de suite'. solutions. games or business. Denominations. and public performance radio broadcasting — under limitation). • industrial or commercial exploitation of the ideas contained in works. symbols or emblems of international government organisations. systems. and
66
. except where they are stylised to such an extent that they become original designs. • letters. administrative or judicial texts. plans or rules for the making of mental acts. methods. or any government or other organisation officially recognised. regulatory. • reproduction or imitations. concepts. • moral rights (ie. state. initials. 6 What cannot be protected by copyright? The following may not be protected by copyright: • ideas themselves. flags or emblems of any country. of shields. exploitation of audio-visual works.

• reproduction for use as evidence in judicial or administrative proceedings. literary or artistic criticism or research. photographs and audio-visual processes of works that are visible from public places. calendars and metric scales. facts. 7 Do the doctrines of 'fair use' or 'fair dealing' exist? if so please describe. paintings. sayings. provided that the amount quoted is not considered to be a simulated and substantial reproduction of the contents of the work. or any other medium of communication.use' or `fair dealing' do not exist as such in Mexican law. • reproduction of a single copy by an archive or a library. and without a purpose. The comparable provisions for copyright limitations are the following: Limitations for reproduction rights: • quotation of texts. legends. • reproduction of a literary or artistic work and in a single copy.• information in common use such as proverbs. • reproduction of articles. • reproduction of parts of the work for the purposes of scientific. The doctrines of 'bit. photographs. Legal entities may not benefit from this provision unless they are an educational or research establishment or their work is not devoted to commercial activities. If not please describe any comparable limitations. Limitations for public performance and other rights:
67
. if this has not been expressly prohibited by the owner of the rights. no longer catalogued and there is a possibility that it will disappear. illustrations and comment referring to current events. published in the press or communicated by radio or television. for reasons of security and preservation. and • reproduction. communication and distribution by means of drawings. for the personal and private use of the person doing it. and the work is out of circulation.

photographs and audio-visual means. Other The rights of artists. Architectural works and works of applied art The author of a work of architecture may not prevent the owner of the said work from making alterations. communicated and distributed by drawings. and • only brief fragments are used as information for current events. are not infringed by the use of their acts. trading copies of the said works. when such works are reproduced. Ephemeral recordings are subject to the following conditions: • transmission shall take place within the agreed period. and • the recording may only be broadcast once. or radio-broadcast organisations. phonographic records. Limitations are listed and interpreted literally. • for the purposes of the recording. phonographic record and videogram producers. but he shall have the right to prohibit his name from being associated with the work so altered. interpreters and performers.• use of literary and artistic works in shops or establishments open to the public. paintings. it will not be possible to make a related or simultaneous broadcast or communication. 9 Are architectural works protected by copyright? If they are. in what way?
68
. 8 What are the standards used in determining whether a particular use constitutes fair use? The law does not define any standards to determine fair use. visible from public places provided that: • no direct economic advantage is pursued. provided that there is no admission and that the use does not transcend the place where the sale is made and serves the sole purpose of promoting the sale of copies of the works. videograms or broadcasts.

However. Plans are protected together with the physical constructions arising from the plans. No requirement of copyright registration exists. a person must file a simple application with two samples of the work and fee. 13 What are the consequences. 14 Is there a requirement of copyright registration? If so. There is no requirement of copyright deposit. 12 Is there a requirement of copyright deposit? if so. 11 What are the consequences. INDAUTOR. please describe. please describe. for commissioned works. Special information about contributors or creators is normally requested by the Copyright Office. the author will have the right to refuse his name being associated with the modified work. please describe. There is no requirement of copyright notice. Copyright formalities 10 Is there a requirement of copyright notice? If so. for failure to make a copyright deposit? There are no consequences for failure to make a copyright notice.
69
. Ownership in copyright disputes can be proved by documentary or other evidence showing that the author created the work. for failure to display a copyright notice? There are no consequences for failure to display a copyright notice although the copyright law indicates that some sort of administrative infringements could arise. if any.Architectural works are copyrightable under the law. The architectural works protected include all aspects that can be attributed as original to the author or architect designer. if any. The law imposes one restriction: the author of an architectural work may not prevent the owner of the physical construction from making modifications to it. 15 How does one apply for a copyright registration? To register a copyright.

Ownership and transfer 18 Who is the owner of a copyrighted work? Generally. However. in what circumstances? Works may be produced as collective works or collaborative works affecting how much control a particular author will have on the work. 22 Can copyright rights be licensed?
70
. 19 Can an employer own a copyrighted work. Exceptions include: • commissioned works — the entity asking for the work becomes the owner ab initio. and. an author would be the first owner of the copyrighted work. for failure to register a copyrighted work? There are no consequences for failure to register a copyrighted work. 20 Can a copyrighted work be owned by more than one person or entity? If so. if so. 17 What are the consequences.16 What are the fees to apply for a copyright registration? The application fee for copyright registration is approximately US$13. written employment contracts must contain specific clauses for creative employees. and • audio-visual works — the law regards the producer as the copyright owner of the work. to own full rights. The law provides for limitations on transfers. 21 Can copyright rights be transferred? If so. the law imposes conditions on the employer. in what circumstances? An employer may own a copyrighted work. For example. Proof of ownership in copyright disputes may be something else showing that the author created the work. Generally. transfers are not permanent. if any. in what circumstances? Patrimonial copyright rights can be transferred.

This has never happened and would be hard to enforce. 28 Does copyright duration depend on when a particular work was authored or published? Copyright duration depends on when the work was authored and fixed into a tangible term of expression. 23 Are there compulsory licences? If so. 24 Is there any provision for the termination of transfers of copyright rights? There is provision for the termination of the transfer of copyright rights. what are they? The publication and translation of literary or artistic works. 25 Can documents evidencing transfers and other transactions be recorded with a government agency? If so. the government would have to start a procedure to declare and approve a system of compulsory licensing. Transfers are only valid for periods ranging between five to 15 years.Patrimonial copyright rights may be licensed. Under the law. transfers are temporary and are subject to certain rules. A transfer in excess of 15 years is only valid in particular circumstances relating to the investment in the production of a work. may be the subject of a compulsory licence. which are required for the development of science and culture and national education. 27 How long does copyright protection last? Protection for patrimonial rights lasts throughout the lifetime of the author (or contributor) and for 100 years following the author's death. Duration of copyright 26 When does copyright protection begin? Copyright protection begins from the moment the work is created. with which agency and how? Documents evidencing transfers and other transactions can be recorded with the Copyright Office by way of an application or request.
71
. However.

being authorised to do so. being the administrator of a collective representation society. Copyright infringement and remedies 31 What constitutes copyright infringement? The law categorizes infringement into the following: Copyright infringements • The editor. entrepreneur. producer. 30 Do terms of copyright have to be renewed? if yes. in what way? Terms of copyright do not have to be renewed. employer. translator. without justified cause. the reports and documents referred to in the law • Not inserting in a published work the requirements referred to in the law • Falsely omitting or inserting in an edition the data referred to in the law • Falsely omitting or inserting the requirements referred to in the law • Not inserting in a phonogram the requirements referred to in the law • Publishing a work. broadcasting organisation or licensee entering a contract with the objective of transmitting copyright in violation of that disposed by the present law • Infringement by the licensee of the terms of the compulsory licensing that would have been declared in article 146 of the present law • To present oneself as a collective representation society without having obtained the corresponding registration with the Copyright Office • Not providing the Copyright Office.29 What does 'published' mean for the purposes of triggering copyright protection? Publication is not a requirement under the law triggering copyright protection. without mentioning in it the name of the author. Publication (reproduction and distribution of a work) is part of the bundle of patrimonial copyright rights. compiler. adapter or arranger
72
.

distributing. videograms or books. being authorised to do so. of the translator. states or municipality and without authorisation the works performed in the official service • Using fraudulently in a work a title that induces confusion with another work published earlier • Fixing. compiler. without mentioning the community or ethnicity. storing. leasing or performing any act that allows having a device or system the purpose of which is to deactivate the protective electronic devices of a computer program
73
. reproducing.• Publishing a work. selling. modified or mutilated without authorisation of the holder of the copyright • Importing. their legitimate heirs or the holder of the author's proprietary equity • Using the image of a person without his or her authorisation or that of his or her successors • Producing. a literary and artistic work. publishing or performing any communication or using in any form. storing. without the authorisation of the respective holders in terms of this law • Offering for sale. transporting or commercialising copies of works phonograms. protected in the law. arranger or adapter • Publishing before the federation. damaging the reputation of the author as such and. representing. and in any form without the previous and explicit authorisation of the author. transporting or making available works protected by this law that have been deformed. if applicable. protected by copyright or related rights. or the region of the Mexican Republic where it belongs • Any other infringement derived from the interpretation of the present law and its rules Commercial copyright infringements The following behaviour constitutes an infringement in trade when performed with direct or indirect commercial purposes: • Communicating or using publicly a work protected by any means.

32 What remedies are available against a copyright infringement? The following remedies are available for copyright infringement: • injunctive relief. The applicable rule is that 40 per cent of the value of the infringing products will be awarded. 33 Is there a time limit for seeking remedies? There is a statute of limitations for civil and criminal remedies. programmes of a broadcasting organisation without the organisation's authorisation • Using. • administrative premises). orders (time. and • criminal sanctions (prison or fines).• Resending. fixing. title VII of the law in violation of that contained in article 158 • Al! other infringements as provided by the law that imply a commercial or industrial behaviour relating to the works protected by this law. shut down of establishments or
• civil remedies (damages). 34 Are monetary damages available for copyright infringement? Monetary damages are available for copyright infringement. physical or psychological characteristics or operation characteristics in such a way that they induce error or confusion with a protected reservation of rights • Using literary and artistic works protected by chapter III. 35 Are attorneys' fees and costs available for copyright infringement? if so. The 40 per cent rule represents a minimum standard provision. reproducing or exploiting a protected reservation of rights or a computer program without the consent of the holder • Using or exploiting a name. denomination. title. reproducing and disseminating among the public. in what circumstances?
74
.

Up to 10 years' imprisonment and a fine will be imposed on: • whoever produces. phonograms. videograms or books referred to in the previous paragraph.Attorneys' fees and costs are available for copyright infringement but they are seldom recovered. videograms or books. copies of works. sells or leases copies of works. transports. or • whoever manufactures with commercial purposes a device or system the purpose of which is to deactivate the protective electronic devices of a computer program. with commercial speculation and without the authorisation that in terms of the cited law the holder of the copyright or related rights should grant. If the sale takes place in a
75
. contributes or provides in any way raw materials or consumables destined for the production or reproduction of works. phonograms. works protected by the Federal Law of Copyright. or • whoever uses in a fraudulent manner. in a fraudulent way. phonograms. • the editor. 36 Are there criminal copyright provisions? if so. From six months' to six years' imprisonment and a fine will be imposed on: • whoever sells to any final consumer in public places and in a fraudulent manner with commercial speculation. what are they? From six months' to six years' imprisonment and a fine will be imposed on: • whoever deals in any form with free textbooks distributed by the Public Education Department. • whoever knowingly. introduces to the country. videograms or books protected by the Federal Law of Copyright. producer or recorder that knowingly produces more copies of a work protected by the Federal Law of Copyright than that authorised by the holder of the rights. with commercial purposes and without the corresponding authorisation. reproduces. distributes. stores.

Although not expressly provided for in the law. 38 How can copyright infringement by prevented? Copyright infringement is always hard to prevent. sells or leases a device or system to decode a coded satellite signal. the internet is certainly included. From six months' to two years' imprisonment or a fine will be imposed on whoever. program-carrier. which ones? Mexico belongs to most multinational treaties on copyright and neighbouring rights. program-carrier. knowingly and without right. From six months' to four years' imprisonment and a fine will be imposed on: • whoever manufactures.commercial establishment or in a permanent and organised manner. imports. The law provides copyright owners with a general right to pursue infringers regardless of the medium they employ. It is also a member of a number of bilateral agreements in particular on free trade and those dealing with copyright and neighbouring rights issues.
76
. exploits with commercial purposes an interpretation or an execution. Likewise the principles of the WIPO treaties have been implemented in the law. including a right of access and the redefinition of the terms 'fixation' and `reproduction' in a digital environment. 37 Are there ways to pursue copyright infringement that occurs online? Methods exist for pursuing copyright infringement that occurs online. without authorisation of the legitimate distributor of said signal. Relationship to foreign rights 39 Does your country belong to any international copyright conventions? if so. without authorisation of the legitimate distributor of said signal. copyright law recognises and protects infringements relating to technology protection. and • whoever performs any act with commercial purposes with the intention of decoding a coded satellite signal. the infringer will be subject to sanction under the penal code. However.

Mexico has executed copyright treaties without reserves or restrictions and on the whole has implemented them into domestic law. Treaty provisions prevail in the event of conflict with provisions in the local laws. national treatment. treaty provisions are valid to fill the gaps in local law. if any. etc. minimum standards.40 What obligations. For example a treaty may be based on the principles of reciprocity. Accordingly.
77
. In any event. treaties are selfapplicable under the Mexican Constitution and would not strictly require implementation. are imposed by your country's membership in international copyright conventions? The nature of the obligations imposed depends on the type of treaty.

Puzzle I The law should be drafted by following copyright fundamentals. Legislators need to know the principles associated with their legislative project or target and the international framework on which they stand. The manner that technologies have impacted the utilization of works has driven governments to find legal solutions against copyright infringement. It does not exhaust or terminate just by the fact that rights are recognized in a given jurisdiction or that courts have the willingness to enforce them. copyright experts are required to participate in the process of legal drafting. Certainly. only legislators worried about terminology and
78
. Poorly drafted laws or decisions may lead governments to greater enforcement difficulties. The truth is that enforcement will never be possible if the drafting of statutes or resolution is weak. Puzzle II Copyright terminology is a mixture of technical and artistic words that can be difficult to digest for those unfamiliar with this field of law. in benefit of society as the recipient of cultural products. infringement of economic rights can trigger when copyrightable works are utilized by virtue of technologies that facilitate or enable the works’ reproduction. producers and users of works. Copyright enforcement is a puzzle that has troubled governments around the world. The purpose is keeping a balanced system of rights among authors. May 2008. However. For example. Ignoring the copyright language or utilizing it inadequately can result in laws that cannot be enforced. distribution. Legislators need always consider that efficient legal writing requires a good understanding of copyright law as well as the use of an adequate technical terminology. public performance or transformation. Creating rules to stop or deter infringement has been as challenging as enforcing copyright rights themselves.COPYRIGHT ENFORCEMENT PUZZLES Copyright World Issue #180. in order to avoid possible flaws and to ensure that laws are rendered as enforceable.

In a vast majority of copyright systems in the world. A common mistake has been to identify “patrimonial” and “commercial” as synonym expressions. without the need of authorization or remuneration. copyright laws need to provide sanctions against infringement deriving from the use of works in commerce or made for the purpose of gain. Infringement by intermediaries has a special connotation and importance. Certainly. or make free use of a work. contributory infringement should be balanced with a system of safe harbors. the scope of copyright infringement should be broad enough to provide sanctions when use has been made for a profit or not. Puzzle V Legislators should regard contributory infringement as a copyright misconduct not necessarily restricted to situations when third parties offer or supply tangible means to a direct infringer. However.
79
. Copyright laws need to be clear and precise enough to deal with these formulae so that rules can be applied smoothly and efficiently. In principle. According with international treaties and doctrine. In keeping with this. in particular when somebody induces or assists the infringer to violate the law. patrimonial or economic rights represent a main column of copyright law.concerned about legal drafting rules have produced statutes that courts can enforce to protect copyright rights. together with moral rights. obtain remuneration from the user of a work without being able to impose any controls or restrictions on use. in a number of jurisdiction. rights to use a work-ofauthorship are patrimonial assets of economic value. Puzzle III Legislators need also employ accurate general copyright language. Puzzle IV Sometimes legislators have had trouble to distinguish when copyright holders can license the use of works setting royalties or doing it for free. authors can rightfully authorize third parties to place the original or copies of their works in the stream of commerce.

for trade or other purposes. regardless of whether the corresponding copies are ultimately acquired or not. Under copyright theories. performances or phonograms. Article 1705(2)(b) of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) imposes on the three member states an obligation to grant copyright owners a right to authorize or prohibit “the fist public distribution of the original and each copy of the work by sale. through sale or other transfer or ownership.WHITHER RENTAL RIGHTS? World Intellectual Property Review 2008. the copyright holder makes the work accessible to the public. However. The German Law of 1901 pioneered in this field by introducing the so-called Verbreitungsrecht. On an international level. distribution has been regarded as the spreading or dissemination of works embedded in originals or in multiple copies through commercial or non-commercial means. Also. such as their storage or transportation. independent from the right of reproduction. distribution entails any activities associated with the offering of the copies. and (8)(1) and 12 of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Likewise. rental or otherwise”. the splitting of distribution rights from reproduction rights was firstly recognized in the Berne Convention in connection with cinematographic works. confer upon authors of literary and artistic works as well as performers or phonogram producers the “exclusive right of authorizing the making available to the public” of the original copies of their works.
80
. whether said rights should be rendered as exclusive or remunerative. Answers have been discussed in international and regional treaties as well as in most countries’ national systems. Articles 6(1) of the WIPO Copyright Treaty. distribution was recognized as a right of full scope in more recent international treaties. International copyright law has embraced the question of whether copyright owners-or neighbouring rights holders. but these issues remain open.should be entitled to rental rights and. Accordingly. if so. A number of national jurisdictions recognize a distribution right of exclusive nature.

Thus be scope of exhaustion becomes restrictive or limited not only from a territorial angle. the predominant rule dictates that distribution rights cannot become exhausted in bulk or as a whole. to the contrary. holders of copyright distribution rights can be the subject of rental rights at least in connection with computer programs and cinematographic works. As a general international rule. that rental rights shall remain with the copyright holder. since at least rental rights shall be regarded as an exception to that rule. The first sale doctrine. governments have asked whether copyright owners should be entitled to exclusive or non exclusive remunerative copyright rights. Since proprietors can rent their originals or copies of works for commercial purposes. the WIPO treaties allow the member states to “determine the conditions” that are applicable to the exhaustion of rights after the first sale or other transfer of the copy of a copyrighted work. WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty in Articles 9 and 13. International treaties impose a certain degree of formality or limitations in connection with distribution rights. In other words.A relevant issue is the moment when distribution rights terminate. International treaties. as it has been called in AngloSaxon systems. NAFTA is clear enough about this when it states that the member states’ domestic laws need to provide “first public distribution rights” by “sale. The foregoing implies that first sale doctrine shall not extend to rentals and. Article 7 –applicable to computer programs. In particular. cinematographic works and works embodied in phonograms. Article 1705(2)(b).
81
. but also from a material or objective perspective. WIPO Copyright Treaty. have stated that distribution rights are exhausted after the copy incorporating a work of authorship has been sold for the first time. and the Directive 92/100 of the European Community. On an international level. the majority response has been that copyright owners should indeed be entitled to rental rights. TRIPS. even after a transfer of proprietorship of the original or any copy of the work. The acquirer is entitled to dispose of the original or copy by virtue of successive sales. was preceded by the Ershöpfung theory of German law and later adopted by the international copyright system. Article 11-applicable to computer programs and cinematographic works. rental or otherwise”. as well as the domestic laws of various countries. Substantive provisions can be found in NAFTA.

motivated by the rentals. incorporated the Directive into domestic legislation in 1996 and. Likewise. 1994. El Salvador. confers on performers and phonogram producers an exclusive rental right of performances fixed in phonograms (performers) and of authorizing the commercial rental of phonograms’ copies (phonogram producers). a general distribution and specific rental rights provided that the latter is not subject to exhaustion. concerning cinematographic works and computer software at the least. Germany. secondly. On the other hand.TRIPS establishes that. International treaty rules have been implemented into the national legislations in different forms. upgradeable to an exclusive system. Latin America countries such as Costa Rica. it offers to member states the chance not to confer exclusive rights. Peru and Venezuela have orientated their national laws toward a distribution rights system. On the other hand. with certain minor variations. for example. while giving the contracting parties having a remuneration system as at April 15. The WIPO Copyright Treaty address the issue of rental right in a manner that is practically identical to TRIPS. the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. Pursuant to cinematographic works. Spain. provided that said system does not lead to the material impairment of the exclusive rights of reproduction held by the performers or phonogram producers. in the event that the government authorities face a widespread problem of film copying. the general rules deriving from international treaties have taken the lead in that regard. the Netherlands and some other European jurisdictions had adopted a distribution model before TRIPS. Countries belonging to the European Community have adopted Directive 92/100. which is compatible with the standards imposed by the TRIPS and WIPO treaties. if a member country does not opt for an exclusive rental rights system. Denmark. Panama.
82
. unless rental itself leads to the widespread copying of films. From the foregoing. the treaty does not impose exhaustion or restrictions to bring the rights to an end. in keeping with that. However. However. unless the rental leads to uncontrollable copying situations. members can choose not to grant exclusive rental rights. TRIPS recognizes exclusive rental rights as a first alternative and. member states shall regard rental rights as exclusive rights to authorize or prohibit. to maintain that system. it still can follow a remunerative system.

the foregoing has opened a new question-whether performers and phonograms producers enjoy rental rights of any kind or nature. The decision of the legislator in 1996 indicates that Mexico opted for the former option. it would seem that only sale rights end after originals or copies are placed into commercial streams. 1994. In addition.
83
. Accordingly. rental and in general. while all other distribution rights continue. TRIPS and the WIPO Copyright Treaty give additional supportive background. The problem is that. NAFTA is a reason. in itself. to justify the existence of a copyright rental right in Mexico of exclusive nature. it is self-applicable and preemptive over the Copyright Law. performers and phonogram producers were subjects of compensation only in connection with the public performance rights. Working in benefit of copyright owners. the Mexican government inserted distribution as a bundle of patrimonial rights in the Copyright Law of 1996. exclusive rental rights triggered from the widespread copying of films. Certainly. The 1996 law extended the remunerative system to rental rights in an apparent contradiction with the terms of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. before April 15. this right shall become exhausted after the first sale (of an original or copy)”. the pertinent provision in the Copyright Law utilises the expression “making available” rights instead of “distribution rights”). the NAFTA standard should prevail. alternatively. Pursuant to the distribution and rental rights of performers and phonogram producers. the law set a distribution exhaustion criterion: “when distribution is made by means of sale. distribution was defined as the “making available to the public of the original or copy of a work by virtue of sale. in harmony with NAFTA. as in light of the Constitution. since they both state that member countries are required to either establish direct exclusive rental rights or. In any dispute. Mexico seem to have elected the remunerative rights formula proposed by the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (for unknown reasons.In order to comply with the NAFTA Treaty of 1993. any other form”. The obscure language used by the legislator of 1996 has raised the question of whether it is the sale right or whole distribution right that exhausts.

the International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions of 1957 and 1989 have been instrumental in recognizing the vulnerability of indigenous peoples and have raised the need for special measures for improving social and economic conditions. costumes or musical instruments.
84
. or imitate their arts and crafts. the United Nations has proclaimed the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007. legends. ii) traditional knowledge expressed in language – stories. copy their stories or legends. Folklore has inspired musicians. epics. textiles. paintings on bodies or other surfaces.
For the past several decades.VALUING FOLKLORE Managing Intellectual Property. art. the world has struggled to protect folkloric expressions. slavish or kitsch imitations of folkloric expressions have sometimes been utilised as tourist attractions or for the making of souvenirs. November 2009. arts and crafts – drawings. and design or in the creation of branded ethnic products. and has often motivated the latest trends in music. Likewise. Western cultures have intruded upon the land of indigenous groups in order to film or record their rituals or music. Attacking the problem In response to the problems that folklore has posed. pottery. Likewise. and v) continuous utilization and development of traditional knowledge. iii) passing of traditions from generation to generation by unfixed forms. iv) community-oriented forms of finding knowledge and expressing it. music – folk songs or instrumental music -. and the World Intellectual Property Organization has drafted certain general provisions related to folklore and intellectual property rights. jewellery. spiritual activity – dance. carpets. without yet achieving a result that is either globally consistent or satisfactory. rituals or ceremonies -. The need for protection derives from the fact that Western civilisations have adapted folklore as a means of entertainment or have converted folklore into products with economic value that are attractive to global markets. Scholars have agreed that folklore is characterised by: i) oral transmission or by imitation. artists and filmmakers around the world. tales or poetry -. carving.

that if protected. should be ruled exclusively by the customary laws of the indigenous communities. These efforts are outlined below at the international. Other questions relate to the right that popular artists have to utilize folkloric expressions to create derivative art works and if such folkloric expression could be considered the preexisting or underlying work. Notwithstanding these conflicts. Folklore is not individual. filming or otherwise reproducing). regional and local levels:
85
. copyright regimes have undertaken great efforts to protect folklore from an international. living beings. Folklore has to do with the land. folklore is often viewed as being in the public domain of information that can be freely used for creating works or for collecting in databases.For indigenous communities folklore represents a form of living. Likewise. the indigenous community or spiritual living. Accordingly. circulates in trade or that pursues a patrimonial or commercial purpose. licensed or assigned. This raises the question of whether industries have the right to use or exploit folkloric expressions by copying (recording. but rather tradition characterized by repetitive patterns and slow changes. regional and national standpoint. since it is considered information and not a work. but rather collective expression. survival or self-determination. copyright seems to contradict or disrespect the customary norms of indigenous communities. it is not original. For Western civilizations. making public communication or transforming them. However. decorates. It has been said that it is a living and continually evolving tradition or living inheritance. which are alien to the legal systems or regimes of the modern world. without having permission or offering monetary compensation. and is mostly unfixed. it does not represent economic rights that can be owned. distributing copies to the public of reproduced folkloric expressions. and simply cannot be viewed as data that can be collected. is not subject to any terms that would fall into the public domain after expiration. Copyright Law was designed to protect individual expressions that are original and that have been fixed. and it is not a good that can be owned or sold as merchandise that entertains.

WPPT eliminated the ambiguity by including an indication related to this point. Before the World Performers and Phonogram Treaty (WPPT). NAFTA has also recognized protection for databases. ii) remuneration rights when their folkloric performances have been recorded in phonograms. the possibility of adding “folkloric works” to the list of protected works was also discussed but not ultimately approved. reproduction. and for collections to be copyrightable. folkloric performers were conferred: i) exclusive patrimonial rights of fixation. By admitting that facts can be collected in databases and not only works in compilations. Other regional treaties have recognized certain rights for folkloric expressions. Mexico and the United States of America. Accordingly.International efforts As a result of the Stockholm Diplomatic Conference of 1967. the Berne Convention was amended to extend copyright protection to works whose authors are unknown (Article 15. Thus. some of them linked to copyright law. distribution – including rental – and public communication. a second group of
86
. A first group of jurisdictions has been silent concerning the issue or has excluded it. TRIPS and the World Copyright Treaty (WCT) made it possible for folkloric expressions to be the subject of collections. it was unclear whether folkloric dancers or singers could be considered performers under the Rome Convention of 1961. paragraph 4 of the Berne Convention). On the other hand. National efforts Mexican laws have been quite divergent in connection with the protection of folkloric expressions. have thus set a standard rule in connection with data compilation that would allow collectors of folkloric expressions to enjoy copyright rights on their collections. phonogram producers were entitled to exclusive rights on the phonograms that they make by collecting sound expressions fixed by them. and iii) moral rights of paternity and integrity. Canada. Regional efforts Regionally. At the Stockholm conference. the Berne Convention has contributed very little to protecting folklore by concluding that folklore is equivalent to anonymous works. under WPPT.

On the other hand. No authored work under the law should be used without the consent of the rights holder. for the following reasons:
•
It is authors. with the purpose of including folkloric expressions within the classification of subject matter protected. as the Copyright Law provides expressly. a third group has protected folklore by copyright in an indirect fashion. the two concepts are in fact rather contradictory. whether direct or indirect. when applicable. If they are subject matter of protection. Other provisions state that the works of popular or craft arts can be freely adapted. The language of these provisions is problematic. and not indigenous peoples. ie that view folklore as information that can be utilized to create works with certain minor restrictions. and a fourth group has provided sui generis rights to folklore. folklore as such can be information collected in databases or sound recordings or the content of audiovisual productions. it is hard to understand why they can be used without restriction. the name of the region in the Mexican territory to which the community belongs. and not the works resulting thereof. The Copyright Law seems to consider folklore as non-copyrightable information that everyone can utilize for the foregoing purposes. the Copyright Law of 1997 contemplates provisions – within a chapter devoted to national symbols and so-called popular cultures – addressing popular or craft works. that can be used freely.jurisdictions has worked on amendments to their copyright laws. Mexico can be counted among the national legislations that grant copyright protection to folklore in some way.
•
87
. Folklore is not synonymous with authored works. In keeping with this. Popular art works cannot be an exception to that rule. among other forms of copyrighted expressions. Authors of popular or craft works mostly rely on folkloric expressions by indigenous peoples to produce their works. who create authored works. provided that the name of the community is credited or. A relevant provision in the chapter related to popular cultures protects “literary” and “artistic” works of “popular” or “craft” arts. The Copyright Law should make it clear that it is folklore. including popular craft art works.

spiritual activity or arts and craft expressions. this is because folkloric expressions are not regarded as works-of authorship. They have thus been granted patrimonial and moral rights related to their artistic activities. On the other hand. the Copyright Law has extended the scope of the legal definition of performing artists to include “interpreters of expressions of folklore”. in any tangible medium. Again. Under the Copyright Law. Only individuals can be authors. Under the Copyright Law of Mexico it would be hard to determine that a folkloric expression could be the underlying work that is used for creating a derivative work. However. Something similar happens with regard to folkloric expressions recorded in a phonogram.•
Indigenous communities cannot make popular or craft works and. In particular. Indigenous communities have developed their folkloric expressions and can only be named for that. folklore can be used without need of authorization. Folklore can also be collected in databases and the data base collector representing the owner of the folkloric expressions as collected in the database. That is true because folklore is unprotected subject matter. depending on the nature of the folkloric expression. including all forms of copying. accordingly. for various purposes. as they are referred to in the statute. Dancers and singers of folkloric expressions are entitled to neighbouring rights of performer artists. cannot be credited for that purpose. However. may be used as underlying works in order to produce a derivative work. authors of derivative works would not require authorization in order to publish them. music. since the law allows that popular art or craft works can be used freely. they are collectives and not individuals. whether audiovisual or aural. Likewise. In that case the phonogram producer can claim neighbouring rights on the folkloric expressions as collected in the phonogram. indigenous language. including
88
.
The Copyright Law recognises indirect forms of protecting folkloric expressions in order to produce works. or can be incorporated in any production. can be reproduced by any form or means. the copyright rights accrue to the author of the work produced and not the community group associated with the folkloric expression employed in the work. Inspired by WPPT. pop or craft art works.

And by allowing the unrestrictive use of popular and craft art works. It is a major problem that folkloric expressions can be copied for any purpose and without limit. and by referencing popular or craft works. but more still needs to be done to protect the rights of indigenous peoples. not only of folklore but of copyrighted works as well. because there is no supporting legal protection. remuneration rights when the performances have been incorporated into phonograph productions – and perhaps audiovisual productions. which is distinct from that of authored works and simply does not fit within the realm of copyright law. Dancers and singers have had better luck. and have indeed been neglected. although this is not clear – and moral rights of paternity and integrity. the Mexican law has clearly erred in defining the spirit of folklore.the right to oppose the fixation. By equating folklore to other works. the law alters the system of protection. This represents a glimmer of hope. There is confusion as to their nature. A need for reform The foregoing reflects the inconsistencies that prevail in the Mexican law with regard to the protection of folkloric expressions. The customary laws of the indigenous peoples living in the Mexican territory have not been considered or respected. reproduction or public communication of their performances.
89
. since they receive protection by virtue of neighbouring rights.

in turn. trade mark or copyright rights and provides defenses against allegations of IP infringement.MEXICO´S FAIR USE BALANCING ACT Managing Intellectual Property. Notably. IP law is about protecting human creativity in every field. Ultimately. exercise of free speech or advancement of knowledge. However. as long as the law states it expressly and the normal exploitation of the work is not affected. distinctive or original is made which can solve a functional problem or contribute to learning or enjoyment. will provide additional benefits to society. The US rules support the idea that copyright exists to benefit the public at large and not only the author or publisher. a society agrees to protect creativity in order that something novel. by conferring on the creator exclusive or other rights such as remuneration or moral rights. Brand Management: Sponsored Editorial. Fair use is a legal theory used in IP law that sets out limitations to exclusive patent. May 2009. In keeping with this. and that use is justified when the use of a work furthers learning. It can be viewed as a line that divides the rights of IP owners from those of users of inventions. Copyright law Fair use can arise in multiple situations. One important provision states that works can be utilized without authorization. The Berne Convention has imposed a standard. stating that works can be freely copied: (1) under special situations. the law
90
. or (3) without to prejudice the rights of authors. National laws have used the standard rule as a reference to develop their own fair use regimes. and when the nature of the work and the amount used permits it. US law has emphasized that a work can be used freely when users pursue a special purpose. (2) without affecting their normal exploitation. which. supported by a so-called three-step test. The rationale for protecting intellectual property is that by doing so we will stimulate creativity. depending on the nature of copyright or systems of author's rights. Mexico's Copyright Law is particularly strict and rigid in its application of fair use principles. fair use stands as a balanced solution to limit undue obstacles that might otherwise result from excessive IP protection. trade symbols and creative works.

The provisions dealing with limitations on copyright reproduction generally apply to literary and other categories of works such as audiovisual or software. Regarding "normal exploitation" of works. literary or artistic critique and investigation. and the recorded signal is recorded only once. The list indicates when the use of a work is fair on the grounds that it is special and will not affect copyright. ii) copy of articles. given that it seems to be limited to activities within the list. v) copy made by libraries or archives for the purpose of preserving or security. fair use users would need to fulfill that requirement in addition to meeting the requirements set out in the list. illustrations or commentary. and iii) reproduction of works for obtaining ephemeral recordings. users are allowed by
91
. including: i) text quotation. For example. investigative or non-profit institution. However. no simultaneous emission or transmission is made when the recording is made. previously disclosed by the press or electronic media. every use made outside of the list would require consent. when reproduction is non-substantial and not a mere "simulation". provided that the work is out of stock. Other limitations to the right of reproduction are: i) reproduction by virtue of drawing.has further listed exceptions to copyright rights in a manner that would probably conflict with the three-step test. The question is whether the three-step test really works in Mexico. iv) private copying on just one occasion by an individual. and that rights holders have not reserved for their own exercise. or publicly perform or transform them. their scope is narrow since users require consent by the copyright holder to distribute copies of works. provided that any broadcasting is made as agreed by the copyright owner and broadcast entity. Thus. photographs. photographic and audiovisual means of works that are visible from public places. iii) copy of parts of a work for scientific. ii) reproduction of software for backup or when indispensable for the operation of a licensed software. academic. regarding so-called actual happenings. For example. no longer catalogued or at risk of disappearing. text quotation is valid to the extent that use does not affect the "normal exploitation" of the literary work being copied. Limitations The Copyright Law mostly deals with limitations to the economic right of reproduction in literary works.

Limitations become stricter when somebody owns copyright on various works – or copyright and neighbouring rights – in connection with a given subject matter. the Copyright Law imposes a restrictive set of limitations to the rights of distribution. public performance and transformation. book publishers and video recording producers are also subject to limitations in the following circumstances. and ii) the first sale doctrine. but of neighboring rights as well. when use is not made for the purpose of direct gain. broadcast signals. or adapting the parts of works copied in their productions. The limitations to the right of distribution are: i) distribution of copies obtained by drawing. photographic. books or video recordings under the same conditions that limit the reproductions of works. This would apply. and public performance of copies obtained by drawing. phonogram (sound recording) producers. In addition to copyright reproduction rights. to a TV producer and broadcaster who own copyright rights on TV programmes as well as neighbouring rights on the TV signals carrying the programmes. and audiovisual means of works that are visible from public places. Neighbouring rights of performing artists. which would likely extend to forms of utilizing that entail an indirect gain. making a public performance of the copied parts or of any works produced by copying the parts. books. and thirdly when users reproduce performances.
92
. It would be difficult for competitors to provide free broadcasts of the protected broadcasts and signals. but would still be prevented from distributing the copies of the parts of works reproduced. and audiovisual means of works that are visible from public places. broadcast signals. First. for example.law to copy parts of a work for scientific critique and investigation. photographic. broadcast entities. The limitation to the right to transform regards the modification of a building constructed on the basis of an architectural plan. secondly when users employ for news reporting short fragments of performances – as fixed or reproduced – phonograms. phonograms. or video recordings. since it would not only have to deal with the narrow application of copyright limitations. The limitations to the right of public performance are on public performance in systems used by video rental or sale establishments.

Under the copyright law. It is expected that the draft law will face strong opposition from authors and the cultural industries. parody could be regarded as an implied limitation supported by the constitutional right of free speech. At first glance. iv) reproduction of photographic and literary works accessible over the internet for private purposes. parody of a work or character will only be possible to the extent that it involves humour and social criticism.
93
. Among other things. users have to be fully respectful of copyright moral rights and not attempt to threaten the integrity of the work or character subject to the parody. In any event. Fair use on the internet Since April 2009. However. this right would conflict with certain provisions of the Copyright Law that protect works against ephemeral copying. However. in that the parody should be made under special circumstances and without affecting copyright or neighbouring rights (sometimes users have invoked parody to hide their real intent to free-ride or misappropriate copyright or neighbouring rights or to disparage by way of libel or slander). and v) a recognition of so-called flexible licences that follow the Creative Commons guidelines or the rules in similar schemes. Among the relevant parts of the draft law can be found: i) a right of users to make transitional copies of works obtained from the internet into the random access memories of computers. including making any alteration or modification representing destruction. including the digitalization of analogue recordings. iii) a right to copy video or sound recordings into the memory of computers. which appears to repeat the provision of the Copyright Law. Likewise. the three-step test criteria should be fulfilled. ii) a software backup right.Parody protection Parody is not expressly mentioned in the Copyright Law as a limitation to copyright or neighbouring rights. the draft law incorporates a chapter laying down limitations to copyright rights in digital environments as well as the rights in sound and video recordings. it should not be allowed – even under the three-step test – considering that parody is not listed as a permitted form of use under the law. Congress has studied a bill for protecting rights of users on the internet.

Mexico's trade mark law is not explicit about the limits to this right. perhaps as in copyright law. competitors of the trade mark owner or consumers of the
94
. but appears to recognize it as a limitation or defence in favour of users. although they are principally centred on consumer confusion and other trade mark law theories. Society may consider that it is important to be able to use trade marks for purposes that are essentially non-distinctive or that do not cause confusion among consumers. in general terms. based on the constitutional rights of free speech. harming or abusive. as long as they do not target the trade mark owner itself. but use the trade mark to highlight a social problem or situation.Trade mark law The concept of fair use has not developed in trade mark law to the same extent as it has under copyright law. users are implicitly authorized by the law to print on their products or packages the trade marks of products or services that have been used to make their own. Under trade mark law parody has been justified when a consumer can differentiate between the original and the parodied trade mark. However. and therefore there are no indications when the free use of trade marks begins to be ordinary. The questions raised in the trade mark field are similar to those in the area of copyright law. it has worked in practice. Parody principles apply equally to trade marks. There is no such three-step test doctrine in the Paris Convention. Trade mark law does not confer an express limitation provision. Mexico's Trade Mark Law does not address parody directly. where it is a nondisparaging reference in acomparative advertisement or similar form. In the end. Constitutional rights of free speech allow parody as it also has permitted it in connection with works-of-authorship and character performances. However. Accordingly. Likewise. in particular those that limit parody to humour and criticism. nor does it stipulate parameters in connection with the limitation. Thus. artists or scholars can "use" trade marks for humorous criticism exclusively. Parody is also an issue for trade mark law. society can have a legitimate interest in trade marked symbols for reasons other than those that the law protects. as in copyright law. the governing rules can simply be based on the rules of reason and fairness. This defence does not cover use as a distinctive symbol in trade but does cover use as an artistic expression or even in commerce.

95
.trade marked product or service can both rely on the parody limitation to defend themselves from infringement claims.

and to remuneration. The right exists regardless of whether the authors or performers hold the patrimonial right of public performance or whether they have disposed of that right by an assignment or any form of transfer. while authors and performers will have a similar right to remuneration from the users.
96
. deriving from the patrimonial rights. It is however clear that the confusing theory that the Mexican Congress has approved and adopted is not only unlawful but unconstitutional. International Briefings. for example an assignee of rights. Congress last year passed an amendment to the copyright law that has had a significant impact on some entertainment industries. deriving from the new system. October 2004. The new system has created a duality as it will be possible to find that the owner of the patrimonial right of public performance. considering that it will be technically possible that authors and performers have rights at the same time to royalties. The provisions passed into law state that authors and performing artists will have a right to remuneration for the public performance of works that they have authored. will have the right to seek a royalty from users of the works. Already broadcasters and film exhibitors have challenged the reform and the court system will have to resolve is soon. The issue will necessarily go further. for the same act of public performance of the work.CONTROVERSIAL COPYRIGHT REFORM INTRODUCED Managing Intellectual Property.

97
•
•
. the deadline is April 2008. the International Agency started a supervision campaign regarding ISBN and ISSN numbers. 2008. Recently. year of edition or reprinting. April 2009. showing the following information:
• • • •
full name and address of the publisher. International Briefings. Since the Copyright Office has never made verifications in the past. The Mexican Copyright Law requires applicants for ISBN and ISSN numbers to submit a catalogue card.COPYRIGHT OFFICE TO CHECK ISSN AND ISBN Managing Intellectual Property. in the colophon of the title. For ISBN and ISSN numbers granted after November 2007. The Copyright Office has set the following verification periods:
•
For ISBN and ISSN numbers granted before November 2007. as used in the directory page of each of the titles. ISBN or ISSN number. the full information (name and address) of the publisher. The Copyright Office has the duty to verify that the information in the catalogue card is complete and true. the deadline is September 1. and a sample of each for verifying use of the ISBN number. within the six months following their issuance.
•
Holders of numbers need to provide:
• •
a completed form ISBN 02.
It also requires that holders of ISSN and ISBN numbers prove “only once” the correct use of the numbers. the information in the catalogue card. and number and date of edition. it has released a proceeding to ensure that ISSN and ISBN granted numbers are being used properly. in connection with all publications circulating worldwide.

The Copyright Office has not publicized the process by any official means. which can be illegal. Nevertheless.
98
. it has pointed out that even in the absence of a publication it will impose sanctions against any publishers that do not comply with the deadlines.If a holder of any ISBN and ISSN number does not attend the verification by the above deadlines. the Copyright Office will take copyright infringement actions and might impose economic sanctions.

instead of what the rest of the world designates just as “Intellectual Property”. it has been society who would agree in protecting a work in order to have access to learning. Inventions. depending on each legal regime. In copyright systems society plays an important role as the recipient of culture and ultimately. In their view copyright – or better to say “author’s rights” – and intellectual property are synonym and equal terms. Author’s rights systems enhance the traditional and somewhat romantic notion of the flesh and blood person that creates by relying on her talent or sensibility and by utilizing tools in a workshop and making everything with her hands. has had a meaning and value in the Anglo-Saxon world only. while “industrial property” has been with inventive or mercantile expressions. On the other hand. Intellectual Property utilized as an inclusive name for copyright and industrial property. It is particularly intended to explore existing differences in the manner that Anglo-Saxon and Roman systems designate the subject of intellectual property. Most countries and regions have generally called “Intellectual Property” the field comprising patents. the IP community has employed the term “Industrial and Intellectual Property Law”. where the figure of the author has
99
.WHAT'S IN A NAME? Copyright World Issue #185. trademarks and copyrights. like science or technology. Spain v the rest of the world Notwithstanding the above. and “Industrial Property” the subject that encircles patents and trademarks. trademarks and works-of-authorship have all become the subject-matter of a legal discipline having in common the protection factor of human creativity in every field of “utilitarian” or “artistic” knowledge. The expression “intellectual property” has been exclusively associated with the ideas of authorship and artistic creativity. certainly led by Spain. altogether. Copyright has been designated in different forms. in a number of jurisdictions in the Hispanic world. copyright systems principally seek a balanced solution between the author and the entities that deliver the artistic content to the public. This note refers to certain terminology in Intellectual Property Law. November 2008. and especially if protection is emphasized on the rights of authors or on the right to disseminate a work. marketing or culture.

a Belgian. in Italian “Diritto de Autore” or in German “Urheberrecht”. the notion of “Intellectual Property”. the romantic idea of the artist handcrafting in a workshop has been substituted for methods of producing works. Secondly. is better suited to address creative figures. not restricted to copyright. Edmond Picard. Nowadays. Paradoxically. Firstly. regarded by many as the father of modern intellectual property law. having an ambivalent nature. as it is the case of designs. and despite the fact that it was arguable whether “property” is applicable to intangible goods – as opposed to tangible property . dealing with intangible goods triggered from human creativity. devoted his academic life to conceive a systematic study.fainted just as it has happened in connection with the figure of the inventor. That field of law was to be called “Intellectual Law” or “Intellectual Property Law”. trademarks or works-of-authorship. not only in technology. and in which entrepreneurship plays a relevant role. establishing a division between artistic and industrial property can be ambiguous. Thirdly. of major complexity.there has been no doubt that inventive and artistic creativity classifies as “intellectual”. there are arguments to consider that “Intellectual Property” is a better name that “Industrial and Intellectual Property”. it was not an Anglo-Saxon who first developed the notion of “Intellectual Property” and who worked on the legal systematization of human intellectual creations. in Spanish the law that protects authors is called “Derecho de Autor”. Contrary to what systems in the Hispanic region have suggested. to convince about the existence of a field of law. Given that the Spanish language provides a meaningful expression. substantively distinct from civil law. but in literature and arts as well. and that cannot be categorized just as inventions. as in French it is called “Droit de Auteur”. why utilize it as an equivalent term of another connotative expression and thereby producing a conceptual –not merely a semanticconfusion?
100
. In the XIX Century.

The threshold is rather different from other forms by which commercial titles can be protected. Reserva is an exclusive patrimonial right to authorize the use of titles of publications or broadcasts. characters of fictitious or human nature. the publishing or broadcasting industries – commercial or non-commercial industries without exclusion – seek ad hoc protection of titles. In general terms. Original titles applied to publications or broadcast can be the subject of reservas. but not the title of a work in general. right holders can authorize or prevent the distribution of copies or imitations of the rights used in any tangible form or their public performance by any media. titles identify literary or artistic works and act as an intermediary between the author and the public. International Briefings. Banal or non-original titles are not afforded protection. such as broadcasting or digital networks. The following is a description of the four categories of reserva rights: 1. performers and
101
. names. Titles communicate or describe the content of works and have the ability to attract public attention to the work. An artist is anybody performing art or artistic activities and may include artistic interpreters. right holders can authorize or prohibit third parties from copying or imitating titles. characters or promotions (collectively referred to as the “rights”). Mexican Copyright Law sets the requirements and conditions for granting reservas. such as trade mark rights. or so-called publicity promotions. For that purpose. 2. it keeps a docket system and follows an ad hoc administrative proceeding. names of artists or artistic groups. In Mexico. reserva rights entitle their holders to either authorize or prevent the rights from being modified or transformed. Thirdly. By virtue of reservas. The Instituto Nacional del Derecho de Autor (INDAUTOR) is the competent authority to grant reservas. based on originality or other cultural standards. Titles of publications or broadcasts. Artistic names. Secondly. October 2008.UNDERSTANDING RESERVA RIGHTS Managing Intellectual Property. The exclusive right to authorize or prevent can be assigned or licensed.

restricted to notions as distinctiveness and confusing similarity and to use of symbols in trade. The Copyright Law has set a broad standard for protecting characters. describe or imitate people. animals or imaginary beings. The Copyright Law defines publicity promotions as “mechanisms” that are “novel”. Characters are part of literary or artistic works but can sometimes be subtracted from the works. The notion of publicity promotions is ambiguous and the applicable standards so high and difficult to fulfil. that the figure has mostly fallen into disuse. as the standard is their physical and psychological characteristics or profile. Characters of fictitious or human nature.authors of artistic works.
102
. by which “goods or services are “promoted and offered”. with the incentive to provide to the public and “additional” good or service in more “favorable” conditions than those “prevailing” in a given “market”. Character reserva is broader in scope than trade mark rights. Characters are those derived from the capacity of humans to represent. 3. Publicity Promotions. The criterion to afford reservas to artistic names is similar to that of titles. 4.

based on Berne Convention standards. public exhibition or any other form by which the ad can be communicated.THE COPYRIGHT RISKS OF ADVERTISING IN MEXICO Managing Intellectual Property. The advertising agency and the executive producer are in charge of bringing in the talent. as the project’s sponsor or the agency. audiovisual works. the producer of an audiovisual work is “the natural or legal person who has the initiative. coordination and responsibility in the realization of a work. paying for and sponsoring the production. In any event. TV ads are works of authorship. since they are made to promote a trade marked product or service. or who sponsors it”. there is generally a client. that are copyrightable subject matter under the Copyright Law of Mexico. The client then hires an agency that undertakes to coordinate the production. Their nature is unique though. So the first step for companies is to enter into written agreements with their agencies that ensure that they own the
167
. or to license them for broadcasting. Clients pay for audiovisual products that they own. it is advisable that companies that engage in a TV advertising project secure the rights from their agency. The Copyright Law confers to the producer all patrimonial rights over an advertisement. Since copyright on the advertisement production can be vested in the client or the agency. Under the Copyright Law. while making clear that the agency will bear all liabilities arising from the production. May 2008. in whole or part. the producer of TV advertisements could be the client. The question is. The client is the party that takes the initiative. Accordingly. as the entity in charge of the coordination or having the ultimate responsibility over the production. In keeping with this. TV or advertisements are audiovisual productions like films. who produces of the ad and thus holds the rights? The reason is that in a typical TV advertisement production relationship. TV programmes or videos –moving pictures with sound that can be viewed with the assistance of equipment. The producer is free to assign those rights to third parties. The executive producer assists the agency by providing studio facilities and all resources needed for to the shooting and post production of the ad. that is free of contingencies. determination of the final owner of the rights is a contractual issue. an agency and an executive producer.

they are authors of the audiovisual works as such. In other words. In any event. Likewise. However. especially if the agency would be recognized as the producer and copyright owner of the production. since such agreements could signify that they take responsibility for the contingencies the service providers should bear. Who owns the art? The Copyright Law describes the director. composer(s). in
168
. An important provision stipulates. agencies can be reluctant to accept their liability over the production. Pursuant to the contingency issue. especially in connection regarding the scope and term of the agreement. once they have consented to the incorporation of their contribution (authorized by any form available in the laws) authors cannot authorize or prohibit the exploitation of the work. and are entitled to patrimonial copyright rights. Work-for-hire agreements can certainly represent a valid alternative. Assignment of rights might work as well. producers are the legitimate owners of patrimonial rights and it is they exclusively who can exploit the audiovisual works. photographer(s) and cartoonist(s) as authors of the works that the producer utilizes in connection with a film or audiovisual production. In that case the agency would be recognized as the initial owner of copyright. that once authors have “consented” to “contribute” to the work they cannot oppose its exploitation. that could misrepresent the spirit of advertisement production agreements and the role and that each party should take in the relationship. companies should be careful not to enter into representation agreements with their agencies. Likewise. can be entrusted and commissioned to firms or other legal persons and the resulting rights belong ab initio to the party that performs as the commissioner. subject to restrictions. including audiovisual works. Agencies have even asked their clients to sign so-called representation or mandate agreements instead of a conventional service agreements. However. As mentioned above. A trend in Mexico is that agencies consider themselves as mere representatives of their clients and that the clients face the liability deriving from labour or other contractual contingencies. The Copyright Law allows that works. the transfer could imply legal restrictions.right. which would be transferred to the client. writer(s). as producers or otherwise. They may wish to transfer their burdens onto the client.

2003. It is not advisable for producers to rely on typified forms to secure all the author’s rights on the audiovisual productions. it can be the subject of a synchronization license. since they are vague and imprecise. The bill of amendment has produced intense litigation at Supreme Court level. and the public communication of the performances. like the direction that is required for the production. They are subject to a different legal regime from authors. the Copyright Law also offers a particular alternative. digital transmission technologies or by reproducing the audiovisual work for distribution by sale or rental. the reproduction of their performances as fixed in tangible media.type rights to oppose the fixation of their performances. If the audiovisual work is based on a novel or other type of literary works. The jingles required to produce advertisements can be commissioned from a composer and the rights consequently belong ab initio to the producer. stating: “Advertising contracts are those whose goal is the utilization of literary or artistic works in commercials or advertising by any means of communication”. a work-for-hire agreement or an audiovisual agreement. The remuneration system can be deemed compatible with the contribution limitation. work-for-hire or license agreements. The contract can be a general license or assignment. Congress approved a public performance remuneration right that would coincidentally strengthen the Contribution Rule of the Copyright Law. Accordingly. If the composer or a music publisher owns the copyright of a song that is desired for the ad. broadcasting. These provisions are not necessarily the best solution for producers to adopt regarding assignment. The same is true as of other creative contributions. they are entitled to Rome. negotiate the rights to publicly perform the literary work as adapted. The role of models Performing artists –screen actors and musicians. as they both allow authors to collect monetary compensation from the public performance of works linked to audiovisual works. and can. by means of public exhibition.are protected under related rights. apart from
169
. typified in the Copyright Law. In the particular case of advertisements. a producer can obtain from the writer the right to adapt it to audiovisual form. Performers hold additional remuneration rights for all forms of exploitation of their interpretations. In principle. in general.

the producer/copyright holder. The Copyright Law is silent on this subject. should bear the obligation. when they have been designated the
170
. After this term. even if the communication occurs for only fractions of that period. the communication shall require the authorization of the authors and artists participating in the work utilized. which party is obliged to remunerate them? It could be company. In keeping with this. The provision imposes a detailed remuneration system that benefits authors and artists who contribute to ads. Authors and artists have this right regardless of whether they assigned their original copyright right or worked for hire. The Copyright Law provides an ad hoc regime for advertisement productions that varies the system applicable to other audiovisual works. the agency or the communication medium that disseminates the ad. the legal definition of “performing artist” would have to be extended to the kind of activities performed by models. performer agreements require non-opposition provisions ensuring that producers are entitled to incorporate the performances into audiovisual productions and to use the same in all media. However. The question remains whether models that do not really have an artistic role in ads can be the subject of these related rights.labour or service clauses. In practice the companies make the payment. The rule dictates: Ads may be communicated for up to a maximum term of six months from the first communication. Naturally. Three years after its production. A relevant question is. an amount at least equal to that original sum must be paid for communication for each additional six-month period. that implies that agencies should assume the obligation. as the party owning the rights on the ad.

That medium could be paper. the idea/ expression dichotomy. viewing or listening is not regarded as sing the works. distributing. a work that is similar or even identical to a preexisting work. distributed in copies. or from the rights to make. For example. transformed into a derivate work. Works can also interrelate with the tangible medium embodying them. digital networks behave like any other medium. meaning that every work requires a minimum of personal independent creativity. transforming and fiving access to the work. communicated to the public. However. technology that is not functional as such (such as film) or technology that is intrinsically functional (like software or designs). or accessed by the public in digital networks. Broadly speaking. Works are original expressions by authors that a final user can read. For example. 2012. metal or another material traditionally used in connection with the classical arts. but in essence. such as inventive step or industrial application. reading. in terms of what copyright law represents. Issues concerning digital networks are often complex. Originality is tantamount to subjective novelty. absence of formalities and limited protection terms. Originality differs from objective novelty and other patent restrictions. Copyright law supports principles of originality.
Let us begin with a few definitions. shall not be regarded as a copy if during the creative process the senior author had no access to the work of the junior author. which look at the functional side of creativity.WHEN COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS COLLIDE Managing IP November. Copyright law concerns the rights afforded to works used in media. communicating to the public. Rights (patrimonial rights) can be exclusive or non-exclusive rights to use a work. The so-called function of products is a field for patents. accepted in a number or jurisdictions. Using works in digital media includes copying. view or listen. Under the theory of independent creation. sell and use. works are used when copied. even if the product is also a work. software-related inventions (software applied to perform
171
. Copyright focuses on the interrelation between a work and the medium that communicates it. the printing press and photocopier copy works and radio and television broadcast works.

which instructs computers to perform functional activities or services. despite the fact that they serve a function. viewing or listening. The theory may be a little imprecise. This is true considering that end use. databases and videogames. arts or audiovisuals.useful activities) have been patented. Protecting functional works like software does not mean that protection shall be expanded to the function of software as a product. and are unnecessary for performing useful activities. but end-using as explained. works have been classified as classical arts. and software has been regarded as useful or functional. or the object incorporating the work can be end-used if one or the other is regarded to be functional or non-functional. Someone is the end user of software works when reading. and of software products when waiting or calculating at the same time. In modern times. Instead. because they can be read viewed or heard. and so on. Software is authored expression as classical works are. software is functional in the sense that software can ultimately do things like writing. Software can represent words. do not serve any functional purpose. distributing. and function. has any copyright significance. Software can be used for functional purposes in addition to or instead of the non-functional capacities of being read. The scope of copyright protection of a software work is quite narrow. Copyrights exclude functionality and even non functionality. copyrights ask whether a work can be used. has no copyright effect. as well as unimportant for copyright law. are concepts clearly beyond the scope of copyright law. viewed or heard. for example software. service. Only using a software work by means of copying. A theory has generally prevailed that works are nonfunctional because they are aesthetic.
172
. sounds or images of writing. It is irrelevant that works. It is restricted to literal codes expressed in writing under a program language. However. copyrights cannot be extended to cover the functionality of works. Experts have said that traditional copyright principles apply chiefly to software works despite their functional nature. music. calculating or playing. Works and function: the software example In principle. This differs from the notion that works are non-functional. Is it possible to extend copyright law to ideas of functionality? The answer is no. less traditional works have been added to the list.

Sometimes objects can either have a i)secondary functional purpose. applied arts and architecture blend the non-functional. Viewing software. Only using an artwork by means of copying. The concept of functionality is irrelevant to copyright law. as in the case of jewelry. The question has been whether software can be copyrighted in virtue of the look and feel that it depicts. or iii) solely a functional purpose. Legal issues have been triggered. but in connection with works of design. not in regard to works of fine art. is like viewing or listening to other works that can be perceived by sight or ear. Functionality is a concept which has a slightly different connotation for artworks that for software. folk art or crafts. but end using. as in is sitting for furniture. architecture. where every work can be viewed. since the pattern is constantly changing as the game is played. Objects can be end-used at the same time that the incorporated work is viewed for enjoyment or other reasons. In both cases art is applied to functional objects of everyday use or to buildings or environments. has no copyright effect. wearing for textiles. for example. The answer has been yes. has a copyright value. Architecture and applied arts fall somewhere in between secondary and principal functionality. it is the object embodying the work that is functional. as explained. since look and feel are within the scope of copyright law. A final user end-uses the work when viewing and enjoying an embodying object (sitting. in particular video games. Concerning artworks. but they have been protected without incurring copyright contradictions or disproportions. Works and function: The artwork example Artwork is another field where ideas of functionality and nonfunctionality converge. folk arts and crafts that make objects the medium of the arts. whereas industrial design is entirely functional. Video games have been a challenge. distributing. However. the rules apply identically: the object incorporating the work can do things.Courts of different countries have rendered decisions addressing the look and feel of software. or cooking for pottery. wearing or cooking) at the same time. Today there is no doubt that architectural and applied artworks fall under the umbrella of copyright law. ii) principally functional purpose. with the functional where the object or
173
. Like software. interior design.

We may then ask why industrial design cannot be an artwork and industrial designers be called authors. including the application of right to prevent works from being copied. copyright has called software programmers. architects and artisans all authors. and copyright on the artistic side of design. functional and nonfunctional is ultimately irrelevant for copyright law. and the rest of patent principles. or the works becoming transformed. Copyright law certainly can protect industrial design. or because designers are not real artists. The best approach is to keep industrial designs exclusively
174
. But more importantly. Software and artworks are perfect examples that copyright can protect works being products of being incorporated into functional products. transformed or accessed by the public. the copies obtained from being distributed or communicated to the public. But if patents concentrated on the function. involving products shaped by designers is in a similar situation. Theorists in both industrial design and IP law have worked to find a dividing line between design and product without convincing results. patents should focus on the function that an industrial design can provide. the shape of products can be functional. Industrial designs may indicate how the product is materially used. In a similar fashion. Works and function: the industrial design example Industrial design. Industrial design fits the description of copyright law. under copyright. Experts have maintained that it is due to reasons of functionality. However. without extending to non-functional elements. Copyright just prevents applied art and architectural works from being copied. communicated to the public. Likewise. as any other functional artwork. it does not matter whether products or their shapes are functional or nonfunctional. Again.building embodying art can provide a service. but this can ultimately add complications. Industrial designs may be accommodated by novelty. distributed. affecting the technical performance of the product. According to industrial design theories. The link between design and product is almost impossible to dissolve. there have been vociferous discussions in order to find out if industrial design is an authored work. issues deriving from convergence could be avoided. Patents can always take care of the functional side of applied arts and architecture.

However. IT also provides a sample reference about the national laws of a number of countries. but there is debate whether the technical and the aesthetic should be separated ant the law split as a consequence. novelty is reduced to independent creation combined with a requirement that new design differ significantly from designs that are known. but incurs contradictions. as it is recognized that industrial designs are indeed works and that copyright is the best substantive protection available. under the Law on Industrial Property industrial designs protection is limited to the ornamental. Copyright or parallel subjects like unregistered designs in the UK or the European Community would take care of the aesthetic or non-functional (using the general theory admitted in IP law). issues relating to industrial designs and their interrelation with works applied art and threedimensional marks. and patents or perhaps sui generis right would take care of the technical or functional. protecting becomes more practical and easy. The standard of protection is novelty and industrial application. and leave functionality to patent law. The benefit is enormous. Likewise. industrial designs are protected by virtue of registration under the Law on Industrial Property. and
175
. in connection with industrial designs. Industrial designs in Mexican law The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has addressed in a document prepared by the secretariat. to the extent that overlapping would not exist or at least would be reduced. Ultimately. Independent creation would admit protection of a work similar or identical to a senior work. As the report explains. the path is free for such an idea. The paper explains the theory that surrounds industrial designs and the overlap with other creative expressions. without any of the complications arising from applying the different principles of copyrights and patents. Inventive step has been excluded.protected under copyright law. provided that the junior author had no access to the senior work. The objective has been identifying possible areas of interest for future work of WIPO. since there is nothing in the Paris Convention or Berne Convention or in other international treaties that could represent any restriction. in many jurisdictions only aesthetic features of industrial designs are protected. The novelty factor applicable for industrial designs under the Mexican Law is almost the same as originality in copyrights. Likewise. In Mexico. avoiding double protection implications.

Overlapping and double protection could have been avoided if from the start the legislature regarded industrial designs as copyrighted works. Needed: a joint venture Certainly.thereby excludes any functionality.
176
. leaving the functionality issues for the Patent Law to address and resolve. It is hoped that one day that Mexican legislators will make copyrights and patents work jointly and in alignment to cover industrial designs. As noted by WIPO. In the end. In this way they might shed some light into the dense and obscure seas of overlapping and double protection. Courts have not addressed issues regarding the nature of industrial designs. Specifically. in December 2010. there is under Mexican law nothing sufficiently consisted and systematic to give strength and power to industrial designs. as they have done successfully with software. but have rendered criteria concerning works of applied art. a circuit court in Mexico City resolved that a work of applied art should require two conditions: aesthetic beauty and a practical and utilitarian objective to satisfy human needs. the court resolution did not reveal anything new and just confirmed what has been written in hundreds of copyright articles and books. Mexico is one of the countries adopting the idea that patent law should only care how industrial designs look without protection how they work. The Copyright Law and Patent Law were not written in order target exactly the same subject matter whilst maintaining essentially different principles.

In general terms. the international community has considered copyright as the best protection for pure arts applied to products. These countries believe that borderline issues will be inevitable. shape or configuration of products or articles. An intriguing question in intellectual property law has been to what extent copyright. The Berlin revision of Berne introduced the concept of applied arts. more comfortable. In the first group are fine arts. more entertaining or more informative. which has played an important role until present times. used in connection with science or technology. Hard debate was a common factor in the first years of the Berne Convention. where artistic or aesthetic design interact with industry to a greater or lesser degree. photographic arts. Brussels and Stockholm were useful in achieving a certain degree
177
. give expression to life or are everyday products that make life easier. crafts or handicrafts applied to the surface. while patents apply for industrial engineering designs. Americas IP Focus 2008. The subject matter in between has signified a challenge for intellectual property rights systems. ii) when industrial products display artistic elements or “aesthetic” design. or iii) when designed products do not display “artistic” or “aesthetic” elements. The revisions of Rome. Issues concerning the legal treatment of arts and industry were developed a long time ago in Europe. popular arts. with or without a regime on special rights. which contrasted with the separatist position of the UK. graphic arts. The basic protection afforded was a right similar to that of patents. France adopted the theory of the unity of art. Other countries have sustained that copyright and patent laws provide sufficient means to protect the whole range of designed products. A number of countries have adopted special rights formulae to avoid discussions as to whether copyright or industrial property rights are applicable in a cumulative or non-cumulative fashion.COPYRIGHT OR PATENT? Managing Intellectual Property. In the third group are designed engineering objects. In the second group lies a whole spectrum of articles. industrial property or special rights should apply: i) when authored “pure” arts are incorporated in industrial products.

the TRIPs and Nafta softened the Paris Convention rule by imposing on member states an obligation to protect industrial designs. but not the function as such. in particular the Lisbon revision. although the latter have an independent character. Engineering utilizes design to enhance or emphasise the functional or scientific aspect of an object. based on novelty or originality standards. functional or industrial design and. jewelry design. Concerning textile designs (this should not necessarily be read as a restrictive criterion). At first. Regarding industrial property. said treaties presented the opportunity for industrial designs. science is ideas subordinated to the rigid function of an object or dictated by it. protection afforded to designs has been redefined. Finally. the more artist she will be. the TRIPs and Nafta established that proceedings should not be so costly or complicated as to impair the chance of protection. On the other hand. based on novelty and other patent forms such as registration or deposit. architecture and photography. While aesthetics is free artistic ideas expressed. the more rigid or strict rules a designer has to follow in designing and the more emphasis she will give to the function of the designed object. to some extent. the Paris revision stated that Union member countries could adopt copyright or special rights to protect applied art works. The more freedom that a designer has in designing and the more aesthetics she can imprint into the designed object. The foregoing differences also apply to industrial designs. However. fashion design. Accordingly.
178
. Design in engineering is function emphasised. The difference between applied arts and engineering design would ultimately rely on the opportunity or capacity designers have to employ a freer style to express ideas. applied arts has been defined as artistic or aesthetic design applied to utilitarian objects. interior or decorative design. textile design. and not only applied arts. the more engineer she will be. Art is to aesthetics what engineering is to science. the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. imposed upon member countries an obligation to protect industrial designs. In keeping with this.of consensus to draw a dividing line between copyright and other rights. which includes individual expressions of graphic design. to be protected by either design or copyright law. Designers have distinguished between designs in arts and engineering.

in regard to their artistic disposition or disposition of materials. dying or any other manual. modeling. sewing. In France. machinery parts.The system of applied art has mostly been constructed over the definitions rendered by designers. casting. However.
•
Similarly. Industrial property was initially conceived as the means to protect industrial designs in Mexico. Industrial property
•
The Law on Industrial Property (LIP) of 1943 conveyed patent protection for novel drawings that provide a peculiar and individual character to a product. the LIP of 1943 conferred patent protection to the form of industrial products. The notion of industrial designs covered models or drawings that decorate manufactured articles. Artistic creations were excluded from patent protection. However. However. as long as the mould does not render a technical effect. legal definitions have included arts applied to products and have excluded industrial engineering designs. engraving. tools. industrial models were defined as any aesthetic pattern serving as a mould that provides a special appearance to industrial products. Consistently. lines or colours that decorate an industrial product and that convey a peculiar and individual aspect to the same. protection started to shift gradually from industrial property to copyright law. whether handicrafts or works produced on an industrial scale. The LIP of 1976 granted patent protection to industrial drawings or models. embroidering. the World Intellectual Property Organisation has stated that applied arts are artistic works applied to objects for practical use. jurists imported the concept of applied arts from existing design treatises in order to use copyright to tackle the ever-growing issues posed by arts and industry. encrusting. when they are used to ornament products through “printing. drawing. mosaic. Industrial drawings were defined as the combination of figures. they are unclear whether industrial products displaying aesthetic designs are applied arts.
179
. as the laws improved by inserting concepts like applied arts. mechanical or chemical technique”. resulting in a novel and original article or product. Neither the Berne Convention nor the free trade agreements provided definitions. weaving. statues or high or low relief. Likewise.

which has become a reference to protect designs of industrial articles.•
The LIP of 1991. lines and colour used as ornament and that imprint peculiarity and individuality on the product. regardless of whether their national laws were not reciprocal in protecting applied arts by copyright or special rights. the Copyright Law of would be protected “regardless of
•
The Copyright Law of 1996. the legislator of 1991 seems to have understood special appearance or ornament as something unrelated to art and aesthetics. Similarly. which is evidently limiting. The Mexican response to border issues has turned around the figure of applied arts. foreign authors of works of applied arts enjoyed same rights as Mexicans.
Artistic works were again excluded from patent protection together with aesthetic creations. In keeping with this. The LIP divides industrial designs into industrial models – defined as moulds that purport a special appearance to a product of manufacture without producing a technical effect – and industrial drawings – defined as a combination of figures. now in force. Neither law recognises special forms such as unregistered designs. copyright laws transitioned from the exclusion of works of art having
180
. The Copyright Law did not impose restrictions on works of applied arts and did not impose differences on other categories of works.
was express in excluding from of arts that would solely have other hand. considers that industrial designs can be registered when novelty and industrial application standards – not inventive step or activity standards – are fulfilled. Copyright
•
The Copyright Law of 1947 copyright protection “works industrial application”. On the 1956 stated that works of art their destiny”. which is still in force.
Mexico has relied on either industrial property or copyright law to protect designs of industrial articles. As mentioned above. As a matter of fact. listed applied arts as a category of works that includes graphic or textile design. works of applied art were subject to the same level of rights or limitations and to the same duration terms.

so long that they are non-artistic or are not characterised as aesthetic creations. Art cannot be physically or conceptually separated from the corpus embodying it. International treaties have been a source of inspiration as well. In Mexico. However. which is a muddy area where patent and copyright principles confront. looking for the broadest protection available. products displaying arts and products displaying aesthetic designs) in general and not only textile designs. it would appear that the two rights can combine in a consistent fashion and that boundaries can be set out easily. and that industrial property protects industrial designs not regarded as arts or aesthetic creations. industrial designs can be copyrighted if conceived as personal artistic expressions. the scope of industrial property rights has been reduced. in practice things can be rather different. Industrial designs still play a role in protecting designs.
181
. The Copyright Law legislator of 1996 seems to have been inspired by the doctrine of applied arts and the French theory of the unity of art.industrial application to the insertion of applied arts as a category of works. as long as the designed object still possesses a special or ornamental appearance. Novelty and originality are different in various respects. Like France. In contrast to this. The TRIPs and Nafta have been fundamental to making it clear that copyright protects applied arts (arts displayed in products. and is restricted to what designers call engineering design. Novel works can exist when unique but cannot be patented given their non-industrial nature. Inventions or industrial designs can be patented or registered in the absence of prior art and works can be copyrighted when personal ideas are artistically expressed. as designers sometimes wish to accumulate protection. copyright is supported by originality. In principle. but are not necessarily exclusive. While patent is supported by novelty and inventiveness. although not eliminated. regardless of whether art is obvious or hidden or is regarded a major or minor part thereof. Mexico has enhanced the artistic side of design. double or cumulative protection is a permitted activity that derives from overlapping. By contrast.

regardless of whether or not they are objectively novel at the same time. the Mexican Copyright Office has granted numerous copyright registrations to designs and the courts have enforced rights resulting of copyrighted designs. which is not necessarily the case for industrial design law. Copyright law was structured to prevent activities such as these. As a matter of fact. designers imprint their own personal artistic expression or character and stamp their names as a symbol of artistic creativity. longer and more expensive as registration implies the fulfillment of higher standards and requirements. stone. distribution in copies. the process is stricter. Accordingly. In general. Mexican Copyright Law supports the idea that fashion. designers can also register their designs as industrial designs. jewelry or containers for perfumes or beverages. public performance by broadcasting or digital network transmission. designers consider copyright a very useful right. metal. since it can not only be invoked against unauthorized parties making copies of the artwork itself but also against any picture or photograph that unauthorized parties take for reproduction in books or publications.
182
. jewelry or glass designers are authors of artistic works. Overlapping will not occur when pure arts are applied to products or when design clearly has an engineering purpose. that are used in fashion. In parallel to copyright or in lieu of it. Overlapping and the resulting accumulation can happen when artistic or aesthetic designs are made in fabric. leather. in addition to others such as the recognition of the designer as an author who enjoys full patrimonial and moral rights and a longer protection term. glass or any other materials. in Mexico copyright is definitively a tool used to protect and enforce rights resulting from designed industrial products. Promptness is only one reason why designers prefer the copyright alternative. Most often. However. public display in exhibitions or altered forms representing a modification of the artwork.

In that sense. rather than the traditional French/European-style view of copyright as a moral right. 2007. The five-four vote is a victory for cinemas. the bill said that authors and their assignees had the right to receive a royalty which was not subject to waiver. which had previously given contradictory verdicts over whether remuneration rights could be assigned to third parties. Luis Schmidt.
183
. May 10. view of copyright as a balanced right in which it is not only authors who have rights. They are part of a system”. The ruling also resolves a conflict between the Court’s two chambers. who represented the copyright users. which had challenged the legality of a 2003 amendments to the Copyright Law in two separate cases brought by Cinemex and Cinemas La Huesteca. They said the legislation was unclear about whether authors still retained the right to seek monetary compensation for their works despite transferring rights to a third party (such as a collecting society): specifically. told MIP Week the decision brings clarity to a confused area: “This decision affirms a more international. the Court said that authors can assign their remuneration right to third parties without limitations. The cinemas argued that the bill as passed by Congress was unconstitutional. for public performances. The April 16 decision means that rights transferred to producers of audiovisual or musical works can be exploited by them without the authors also seeking monetary compensation in addition to their existing patrimonial rights. Cinemas and other organizations that deal with collecting societies are celebrating a victory in Mexico’s Supreme Court. other than on death. of Olivares & Cia. he said it is a move towards a more American-style view of copyright as an economic right. Treaty-based.LANDMARK RULING BACKS COPYRIGHT USERS Managing Intellectual Property. In a rare intervention in copyright law.

Groups of users like theatres or broadcasters raised strong objections against the bill since. However. In essence. would be owners of the right and since nothing was ever mentioned to define the nature of the remuneration right vis-a-vis existing patrimonial rights. in their consideration. The group of users viewed the remuneration right as a repetition of the patrimonial right of public performance and accordingly. the bill-opened questions if the right would be part of the bundle of patrimonial copyright rights or if it would be regarded a sui generis right of economic or other nature. it had opened a window accruing in favour of authors "and" their assignees.A PUBLIC PERFORMANCE IN MEXICO Copyright World Issue # 170. the provision states that an author and his/her assignee shall have the right to receive a "royalty" for the public performance or transmission of the work that they have created and the right cannot be renounced. authors and assignees. that would allow seeking multiple monetary considerations from users in connection with one single event. since it was used a conjunction "and" to describe that both. May 2007. On 16 April 2007. The resolutions resulting from each of the chambers had a contradicting effect. as a vehicle that authors and assignees would employ in detriment of their constitutional rights. Agreeing to disagree Some of the actions reached the Supreme Court and were analysed simultaneously by the two chambers that compose the high court. concurrent patrimonial and remuneration rights that they would be entitled to at the same time and consequently. the Supreme Court of Mexico rendered an important resolution in connection with remuneration rights. users brought constitutional actions before the federal courts with the purpose of removing the newly adopted bill from the Copyright Law. The background of which is set against a bill passed by Congress in 2003 which recognized the rights for public performance of works-of-authorship. While both agreed that the remuneration right that Congress
184
. Likewise. Accordingly. the language that Congress employed was regarded by users as equivocal confusing and unfortunate.

would the Supreme Court undertake a more protective approach by enhancing the rights of the flesh and bone author. The policy aspects behind the technical considerations were well beyond in terms of importance. The challenge for the Supreme Court would not only rest in defining whether Mexican Copyright Law had introduced non-exclusive remuneration rights adjacent to the exclusive patrimonial rights system or if the newly created right could be waived or if on the contrary authors could not renounce to it. but could be transferred by a living author to any assignee (i.e.inserted into the Copyright Law was a right in itself of economic nature. but certainly. they disagreed in the reading of the "no-renounce ability" requirement. The contradicting judgments of the two chambers were raised for the analysis and discussion of the plenary assembly of the Supreme Court. without viewing other interests? Five-to-four vote The outcome was ultimately based on the proposal by the first chamber with certain minor modifications. A divided plenary court. It was the first time in many years that the Supreme Court of Mexico would address copyright questions that required a thorough analysis of the subject's fundaments and principles. a producer). since the right could not be renounced. it could only be transferred from a diseased author to an heir. The purpose of the analysis would be holding a session in which the whole issue would be discussed and decided by all Ministers gathered together. The second chamber supported the idea that. following NAFTA and other international trends putting rights of authors and users in balance and harmony? Or on the contrary. whereas the second chamber was more inclined to the author's interests. giving a fiveto-four vote. Would this resolution be another proof that Mexico has been slowly departing from strict author's rights notions. The first chamber of the Supreme Court stated that the remuneration right could not be renounced. It was clear that the first chamber's position was beneficial to the cultural industries. decided to the existence of a remuneration right that
185
. different from the patrimonial exclusive right of public performance. Discussion by the Ministers sitting in the plenary session was a remarkable event.

granting all rights to the former to benefit from the exploitation of the works and without that authors have a chance to participate in the same. under Mexican Law it will be possible that producers of audiovisual or musical works own by transfer the remuneration right of authors. In keeping with this.authors enjoy for each time that the work that they have authored is publicly performed and that they can transfer to third parties without limitation of any kind.
186
.

The main argument of the plaintiffs was that article 26 bis had imposed remuneration rights in a
187
. On April 27. Issue 4. "Article 26 Bis. SACM considered that the problem arising out of the agreements would be resolved by modifying the Copyright Law. The bill was sent for review to the Chamber of Senators and the outcome is pending. Congress did not stop to meditate about said impact. or to the collecting society that represent it. groups of affected users filed actions against the bill that even reached the Supreme Court. allegedly as they pay to the composers royalties in amounts below of what it is stated in the agreements. the Chamber of Deputies approved a bill to insert an article 26 ter dealing with remuneration rights for reproduction of works-of-authorship. 1. At that time. Congress passed a bill adopting a remuneration right for the public communication of works. However.MEXICO: REMUNERATION RIGHTS FOR REPRODUCTION Computer Law International CRi. 2. 15 August 2006. as it just passed the bill without to analyze the subject in detail. the public communication or transmission of the works. directly to the author. in a direct form. Background The history of article 26 ter goes back three years ago. 2006. in line with a proposal by the "Sociedad de Autores y Compositores de Música" (SACM). Supreme Court Decision on Bill As a response to the bill. This royalty shall be paid directly by the person/entity who perform. submitted to what is foreseen by the articles 200 and 202 sections V and VI of the law". with the purpose that the author can claim a compensation from the user of the works. The author's rights can not be renounced. SACM has a longstanding dispute with music publishers as to the publishing agreements and that these latter do not respect. —The author and its assignee shall have the right to receive a royalty for the public communication or transmission of its work through any media. with the discussion and approval of article 26 bis. SACM did not consider the impact that their proposal would produce and most certainly. the collective society that has representation of composers of musical works.

by interpreting the notion of assignee beyond the wording. without having to obtain consent from the copyright holder. who may be demanded a double. In virtue of a remuneration right.level or degree that would only trigger higher duties for the use of works. b) Limits of the Bill's Wording Upon the utilization of the conjunction "and" that includes the author "and" the assignee as subjects of the presumed rights of "royalties" or remuneration. authorizing or prohibiting the public communication of the work at the same time that the author "and" its assignee execute its own remuneration right. But in particular. due to the fact that the owner of the patrimonial right. can make a free utilization of the same. anybody using a workof-authorship. at the same time (they deny the sense of the
188
. evidently there is an affectation to the user of the work. may execute its exclusive right. is completely different from what SACM had proposed initially. the second chamber of the Supreme Court went beyond the reclaims of the users. Some Ministries sustained that the author and the assignee may not coincide as owners of the same right. triple or multiple payment. as it overlooked that the remuneration or "royalty" system that it had created would coexist with the patrimonial rights system. It is evident that the two systems cannot control at the same time.and remuneration rights — rights of authors "and" assignees to get compensation for the exploitation of works and that cannot be renounced —. The sentence distinguishes between patrimonial rights — exclusive rights to authorize or prevent the exploitation of a work. it was most surprising to see that the Supreme Court's own initiative was deficient as well. as long as the user compensates the author "and" the assignee. without defining when each would apply. in order to state that article 26 refers to a remuneration right. Surprisingly enough. that may be the author as origin owner thereof. a) Deficiency of Supreme Court Initiative It can be observed from the above that the interpretation that the Supreme Court has given to article 26 bis. that is different from the patrimonial right of public performance. the Court itself got lost in an absurd discussion.

. The wrong interpretations of the Supreme Court of Justice have produced such discussion. Page 2) As may be observed. The consideration that sustains this initiative is that: "The authors and composers of music. who is the final user of the copies-." (Decision of the Commission of Culture of the Chamber of Deputies. The assumption of the decision is unacceptable. restricting the legal meaning of assignee).. The aforementioned in virtue of a legislative work that was deficient from origin.conjunction that is used in the article 26 bis. without affecting in any way. c) Chamber of Deputies Approach Not approving the above. that adds to the one obtained indirectly. the initiative turns out to be deficient on the technical ground and its methodology. allusive terms in the musical media. who execute a derived right. while other Ministers appointed that as assignee it shall only be understood as the individual who receives the rights by transmission mortis causa (admitting the conjunction sense of the 26 bis. that the case is in thesis contradiction. saying that the "and" is actually an "or"). the initiative is supported over a new proposal form SACM. as beneficiaries of the remuneration right or the article 26 ter. before the possibility of the "royalties" that the owners may demand of the patrimonial rights. considered to solve a problem which affects only the music industry. may collect directly and independently. besides it result an acknowledgement of SACM for demanding a direct "royalty" of the user. shall produce serious damages to the users of the works — in many cases the general public. SACM employs expressions such as "composers" or "publishers". the user also and for the same
189
. Moreover. in order to extend the "system" of remuneration of the reproduction of works. besides the authors "and" its assignees. It is important to insist on the harmful effects of the article 26 bis. What is worse is that in virtue of the article 26 bis. the royalties that correspond to (sic) for the reproduction of its works. However. through an attorney or by means of a collecting society to which they are members. there is a whole experience that apparently has not given a benefit. the royalties belonging to the publishers of music. that transferred to an article 26 ter. the Chamber of Deputies currently is analyzing the possible adoption of the article 26 ter.

under the only obligation of making a payment or "royalty". may take criminal actions or complaints against the infringers of the reproduction right.act of exploitation-reproduction and distribution of a work-. independently of the existing disputes among the parties of such agreements. due to the fact. without any authorization. as a result of the assignment agreements that enter with the publishers or other assignee of rights. If a remuneration "system" is adopted for the reproduction right. Outlook Finally. it is concerning the adoption of a "system" of remuneration applied to the public communication. Derived from the patrimonial right of exploitation.
190
. in this "legal" case and in general. there is a risk of slanting the relevant patrimonial rights. The reproduction is way of exploitation of works that the owner of the patrimonial right controls. through its authorization. Paradoxically. any third party may do copies or reproductions of its works. making invalid every chance of compliance through the criminal actions or complaints. the owner may impede that any third party do copies of the works and therefore. The only actual effect of this bill is to involve the users of the works in the disputes among authors and rights assignees. that under an interpretation such as the one that the Court has provided to the article 26 bis. It is important to mention that a situation like this shall generate a greater index of counterfeiting. transferred to the 26 ter. even more concerning is if it is concentrated on the rights of reproduction and distribution. shall provoke a situation of out of control. 3. as it is set forth in the referred precepts. the aforementioned shall harm mainly the authors and the owners of the copyrights. that precisely demand the no authorization. original or derived.

IP Review 2006. various countries have moved for novel statutes or for amendments to their existing ones. but in general for making them compatible with TRIPS or treaty
197
. Digital technologies for reproducing and disseminating works-of-authorship have continued to raise legal questions due to the level of sophistication that they have achieved. or by embracing piracy and infringement. I accept that if that was allowed to happen it would have a serious impact on writing". Justice Peter Smith who ruled the verdict in connection with the UK case Da Vinci Code1. for different reasons or purposes. not only new technologies have triggered defiance to copyright law during the 2006. The judicial quote for this year shall go to Mr. Global legislative update. During 2006. Justice Smith's fine contribution was making it clear that copyright law has limits aiming at ensuring that human creativity is preserved: "It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way the Da Vinci Code has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright. it would seem appropriate to analyse the global picture from a legislative and judiciary perspective. but also (and perhaps more evidently and consistently evidenced) within down-to the earth fields accessible to everybody in every corner of the world. not only within a high-tech environment. In order to give a glimpse about what it would appear as the most relevant happenings in the year 2006.
Has 2006 been successful for copyright protection? Luis Schmidt presents a global report looking at how each country has tackled copyright issues in 2006 The year of 2006 has been a challenging one in terms of how media has impacted copyright laws around the world. However. Mr.COPYRIGHT AND THE GLOBAL CHALLENGE World Focus. Courts and other government authorities have been quite active by revisiting traditional copyright principles and fundaments.

obligations in general. without to unreasonably prejudice the rights of copyright owners. • relaxing legal provisions against parallel importation to meet the community's aspirations for free use and circulation of parallel imported copyright works. having the ultimate purpose to eradicate the making. On the one hand. Many governments have spearheaded the move to increase their enforcement and protection systems. The major provisions of the bill include: • maintaining the existing scope of the criminal offence provisions relating to the possession of infringing copies of copyrighted works for use in business. selling or using of unauthorized products. after a two-year consultation process. • In Malaysia. • improving the copyright exemption system to add certainty for users and allow them to use copyright works more flexibly under certain circumstances. The following are examples of legislative developments or policies adopted on the enforcement side: • In China. On the other hand. 2006 has represented the year of the most aggressive campaigns ever launched in connection with software and film piracy. Commerce Minister Bo Xilai has stated officially that the country will continue to promote the protection of IPR to enhance economic growth in order to benefit both foreign and local industries2. a bill of amendments was published on 17 March 2006. • In Hong Kong. with the support of the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs. the Motion Picture Association
198
. in the Hong Kong Government Gazette and introduced into the Legislative Council on 29 March 20063. Enforcement has signified a particularly important issue for a number of countries looking to strengthen sanctions in order to deter copyright piracy. the Business Software Alliance implemented the "2006 Ops Tulen Campaign" (Operation Genuine Campaign). • providing new civil and criminal liability to enhance protection for copyright owners. and • strengthening enforcement efforts against copyright offences.

with the purpose to provide enhanced of legal tools to fight against piracy. Firstly. Amongst other relevant amendments it considers extension of prison sanctions from three to five years as well as increased fines5. the Copyright Act has been adjusted to meet Penal Code threshold provisions by eliminating requirements "that makes repeated instances of a specific type of act carried out by an habitual offender subject to weighted penalties"7. • In the UK. In keeping with this. •The USA has also moved for improving enforcement provisions at various levels. independently if the result of that is successful10. the government has approved the Intellectual Property Regulations 2006/1028. the government has been working on a proposal to raise civil and criminal sanctions of copyrighted products. • In Paraguay. Likewise. "Operation Red Card".launched "Operation Red Card". in compliance with the European IP Enforcement Directive8. an Asian-wide anti-piracy initiative to protect the sale of cinema movie tickets and legitimate home video products. The proposal went to the extent of imposing criminal penalties for "attempting to infringe a copyright".176. • In Taiwan. to modify existing provisions of IP statutes. As a matter of fact. the local congress in California passed a statute that lowers the standard to find copyright infringement felonies of musical works reproduced in CDs from 1. in essence.003 unauthorised optical discs seized and 128 people arrested". legislation was approved in a statute identified as "Ley 19/2006" of 5 June 2006. like the Copyright Law. a bill was submitted to the National Congress. 422 optical disc burners seized.
199
. the Civil Law and the Criminal Procedures Law. 1. resulted in reportedly 455 raids. a new law on IP entered into force in July 2006 that will be mainly devoted to the enforcement of rights by virtue of administrative actions11. The law provides. released for the Soccer World Cup.000 copies to 1009. • In Spain. • In Vietnam. legal means to protect IPR and their enforcement by criminal and civil actions. published at BOE 1346. the "Ley 19/2006" has reformed statutes of Congress.

12 In addition. that is currently looking into the possibility of according statutory recognition to mediation as a dispute resolution mechanism. • Regulations on copyright protection of folklore. In terms of an IP policy.Examples of bills passed by countries' governments or under current analysis are as follows: • China is in the process of legislating the following regulations or interpretations: • Measures for payment of legitimate license royalties for broadcasting. • The French Assemblee Nationale has approved a certain law to implement Directive 2001/29/EC that if confirmed by the Senate. In essence. Malaysia has continued to discuss the adoption of a specialised IP Court. which came into force on 1 July 2006. However. to tackle down the backlog of nearly 800 IP cases in the
200
. the government in China has created a regulation to protect rights in reference to the right of network dissemination of information. The document serving as the basis of discussion has been called the Mediation Act and is tipped to provide for both voluntary and court-directed mediation and would address certain type of disputes. the parliament has designed a rule that would force Internet music providers to relinquish control of their digital rights management technologies so that content services become compatible with any mp3 or other digital players. including IPR disputes15. comprising of a Federal Court judge and representatives from the Bar and the Attorney's General Chambers. decided by the Supreme Court13. The discussion originates from the "Mulholland Drive" case. •The Malaysian government has Integrated a committee. will bring a major struggle with Apple Computers and the US government that is backing the latter company's position. The foregoing would naturally force Apple to amend its iTunes service to work with any rival players to the iPod. and • Supreme People's Court interpretation of issues relating to the application of the law in connection with the civil case of MTV copyright disputes. Apple has argued that the foregoing would result in state-sponsored piracy since users of players other than iPod would get content for free. the French government has viewed the measure as a means to avoid restrictions to competition under national and European laws14. expected for next year.

The bill incorporated a so-called right of "Interactive access" ("puesta a disposición interactiva"). right of likeness or image having a personal — rather a commercial or publicity — connotation or meaning. and has the purpose to protect the name. right to information and right to inform. to be considered as a modality of the more general public communication right. on the one hand.courts. • The local Congress of the Mexican Federal District approved on 20 May 2006. In keeping with this. the bill has addressed sensitive topics like private copy levies — for analog equipment and digital rights management. right to be treated honourably. right to intimacy that protects people's activities in a private environment. distribution and public communication right rules were made consistent to meet digital technology demands. Finally.
201
. the bill adopted a digital language to protect neighbouring right holders as well as a system of legal actions against Internet intermediates17. legislation to protect human personality and likeness. In addition to that. with the purpose to align Spanish copyright legislation in force with the standards of European Directive 2001/29/CE on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. • Spanish government has approved "Ley 23/2006" of July 7. The Privacy Law searches for a balance between privacy and personality rights. image. it has entered into a detailed analysis of notions such as personality rights. The law has been entitled Law of Civil Liability for the Protection of the Right to Private Life. and freedom of speech. on the other. the Multimedia Development Corporation has launched Creative Commons licensing process in Malaysia and the public is now able to license their works under Malaysian law16. Likewise. Spanish Congress adopted traditional concepts like patrimonial rights in response to the challenge posed by information society. published at BOE No. Honour and Image. honour and intimacy of persons. 162. as well as rights and restrictions in connection with databases. Reproduction. The new text has been centred to situations created within the context of new technologies. right of privacy and private life. After a long discussion. 2006. Accordingly.

musical or
202
. brought an action before the courts in England against publisher Random House. was not convinced that defendant did not have access to the work and stated that that there was copying. Mr. In some way this years' outcome would seem to continue the trend that started some time ago in connection with disputes in the digital industry. Likewise. author of the book Da Vinci Code. had copied the central theme of the latter book's story. Justice Smith further manifested that in the end. It is clear that UK courts have continued in the view that copyrighted works can convey unprotected ideas "either because they have no connection with the literary. it is quite perceptible celebrities have apparently decided to confront photographers or publishers that employ their image without consent or use undisclosed information. and accordingly. dramatic. Mr. the defendant had used the plaintiffs' book on a general level of abstraction. claiming that Dan Brown. • Also in the United Kingdom. on 20 January 2006. due to the popularity of the property involved. by having taken "ideas and facts without any of the architecture". but not to the extent to find copyright infringement under the laws of the United Kingdom. a court resolution was handed down in the Nova cases. battlefields have also emerged to witness fights between creators and users and even between creators themselves. acting as the judge for this case. Justice Kitchin resolved that defendants had not made a substantial copy of plaintiff's works and although the former had employed some of the game's features use was just made in a general sense. Mr. The defendant based its defense on the principles of idea/expression and that he had no access to the plaintiffs' title. Justice Peter Smith. Idea/Expression Dichotomy • In what perhaps would be the most publicised case of 2006. he did not do something wrong18. Defendants were again the winners in a litigation addressing issues like substantive copying and the idea/expression dichotomy in video games. the writers of the 1982 book entitled "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail".Global judicial update 2006 has reported interesting court decisions in a number of specific fields. However. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh.

in which the court adopted a rather contrary approach. Walt Disney has also been sued for steeling the central theme of literary or other works. plaintiff "ABC Fútbol" holder of the copyright rights on a board game about soccer. but only the result. The court in Buenos Aires found that the games were not similar and that defendants had relied on the general or "public" idea of a soccer game played on a board. In that case the court recognised that the technical features that the photographer employs for taking a picture contribute to express the idea by enhancing the liberty of creation22. specifically in a district court in the State of Colorado. but having other characteristics. creator of a character named "Will Turner" and a pirate ship called the "Black Pearl". In Switzerland. or because they are so commonplace as not form a substantial part of the work"19. shall be regarded the expression of creativity. was unable to show. The Judge found that by using the technical process of a photograph the defendant did not exploit the creative expression21. •The idea/expression dichotomy has also been analysed by the courts of other jurisdictions. and that counted as a commercial use of the portrait24. that is the picture in itself. Amazon. In particular. Inc. under the theory of "injury in fact". Finally. the players and the form that the game is played20. that Cannondale. sued defendants "Vitólo" and "Tele Red Imagen S. claiming that the story of the film "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Cruise of the Black Pearl" infringes upon his copyrights on the characters. filed a complaint before a district court in Los Angeles. Nonetheless. In Argentina. a
203
. in the United States. the Swiss courts have reported another 2006 case. Rights of Publicity or Privacy • In China. for the reproduction and distribution of another soccer game called "Super Fútbol 6". like the different rules.artistic nature of the work in question. the federal court clarified that the technical photographic process of a photograph is not determinant to find out whether a similar photograph is a reproduction of the original one. The Beijing court decided that the proximity of the two photographs within the magazine clearly suggested a connection between the athlete and the department store.A. an athlete was successful in bringing infringement action against a magazine that had published his photograph next to the advertisement of a department store. The case is currently pending23. Royce Mathew. In the United States.

The Xiamen People's Court actually sentenced infringers. including Sharman networks. they would encourage existing Kazaa users to continue copying the sound recordings and recruit new Kazaa users to do the same"27. The court felt that. the High Court determined that record companies are entitled to contempt court proceedings against Sharman Networks.000 (approximately USD 1. inasmuch as warnings used to promote the legal use of copyrighted music files or technological measures employed as a filter had not been enough in the end to curtail infringement. Without the authorisation of copyright owners the website uploaded a large quantity of musical works from Baidu. The record companies started contempt proceedings that were challenged by defendants. the complaint was finally dismissed25. that the infringing respondents jointly decided that neither they. The plaintiff should have proved injury and since it was unable to produce evidence in this respect. Yilong Huang and Zengcai Chen. Last year copyright owners of the sound recording shared through the Kazaa system adopted a strategy for taking action against ten defendants. after having premeditated it. • China tested for the first time a case of network dissemination. published in a catalogue a picture of a famous bicycle racer named Melissa Giove. services like searching. nor any of them. to provide to its registered membership for a fee.250). to one-year imprisonment and a fine of RMB 10. would accord any respect to the orders made by the primary judge on 5 September 2005 but rather. Justice Branson actually intervened: "The evidence when adduced might establish. amongst other services. Copyright in Digital Formats • In Australia. both individually and together.bike competition team. The full bench of the Australian Federal Court rejected the claims. for example.
204
. Accordingly. Yilong Huang rented a server from Xiamen Xinfeiyang Information Systems Engineering Limited and built a music website. The judge considered that in addition to any claim in support of the nonauthorisation of the picture. Kazaa was forced to pay damages and to introduce technological measures to prevent infringing use of copyrighted works26. owner of the Kazaa file sharing system. after she had left the team.

the case is currently under appeal. The infringers were arrested and then convicted. Zengcai Chen was responsible for the website's maintenance.142).24 (approximately USD 7. It concerns a TPM inserted in a movie's DVD. However. o95. One purchaser filed an action against the producer of the "Mulholland Drive" film by stating that the technology prevented him from making a private copy of the same. This is the first case relevant in China regarding network dissemination28.708 registered members. SGAE brought an infringement claim against the defendant. since the Judge in charge of the criminal trial believed that they had actually committed a copyright crime. in order to prevent the users from making copies out of the DVD that they would purchase in the market. a person was convicted of copyright infringement for distributing three Hollywood films using Bit Torrent. declared that Mr. the owner of an establishment called "Disco Bar Metropol". including 1544 charge members as well as 10. The defendant
205
.F. The defense was sustained on the "three step test" of the Directive 2001 /29/EC and the Supreme Court of France backed that position by stating that private copying exception cannot be an obstacle to the use of TPMs29. since he was making a public performance of musical works pertaining to the repertoire of the collective society. The case deals fundamentally with private copying and technological measures of protection issues. • In France. It was also evidenced that the infringers had obtained illegal profits of RMB 57. the famous "Mulholland Drive" decision has challenged the country's copyright system. which began on 26 September 2006 30. Ricardo Andrés U. •In Hong Kong. In that ruling. They made profits from charging membership and maintenance fees.. which had been widely considered a landmark case. as it was the first action against peer-to-peer file sharing in Hong Kong. was not liable to the charges of infringement and damages claimed by the collecting society "Sociedad General de Autores y Editores" (SGAE). the Tuen Mun Magistrates' Court sentenced Chan Nai Ming to three months imprisonment. It was ascertained that the website was loaded with 12.847 songs.on-line tuning and downloading. Creative Common Licenses • In Spain. a first instance court in the city of Badajoz.

Furthermore. The court considered that these liberties have been taken into account already by the legislator. The defendant brought defenses both at a formal and substantive level. Eli Lilly and Company. and there is accordingly no obligation or duty to modify the balance. including an account of trial costs31. Mr. and that he was rather standing on the benefit of creative common licenses. for the making of pharmaceutical products as otherwise the defendant would not have the chance to participate in tenders and compete against the plaintiff. it was the latter who had the burden of proving the contrary. found that as the defendant was able to show. against Nordic Pharmaceutical Company. The reason of the claim was that defendant made an unauthorized translation from English into Spanish of two clinical studies33. in a 2006 decision32. S. INDECOPI found that the clinical trials were indeed copyright subject matter and that the plaintiff had as a result a patrimonial right to control
206
. on prima facie grounds. in the sense that the quotation is permitted only for the purpose of illustrating or explaining a work. Luis Cáceres Ruiz.C. the quotation exception has been construed restrictively. that he had not used works administered by the plaintiff (because of the creative commons license that it holds). the court denied explicitly that a copyright infringement could be justified under freedom-of-expression concerns. The judge. The plaintiff requested application of administrative remedies like fines as well as a declaration of infringement and the awarding of litigation costs. Derivative work rights • In Peru. claiming fair use in that it should be entitled to use clinical information pertaining to third parties. The plaintiff was unable to show that the defendant used musical compositions of its catalogue and the court decision was rendered in favour of the latter. a communicated work can be quoted in its integrity. Quotation exception • In Switzerland. In general. filed a copyright infringement complaint before the administrative agency called INDECOPI.denied having used works of composers that the plaintiff could represent.A. the Federal Court has confirmed the principle that under specific conditions. for the purpose of using said documentation in a bidding arranged by the Peruvian Army Health Division.

But more importantly that the system continues to improve in adopting formulas for equally balancing the right of copyright owners and those of the users and disseminators of the works and other cultural products. Elisa Prieto Castro of Elzaburu.gov. Disputes between users and rights holders have been sorted out and judiciaries and governments have again dealt with the issues in a fairly successful manner. in a quite significant number of countries. Notes
1 Da Vinci Code Verdict Announced. Madrid. 5 Source: Ms.over the derivative works that third parties made of the clinical studies. 6 Source: Mr. Ella Cheong and Joerg Sosna of Ella Cheong (Hong Kong). Paraguay. INDECOPI further analysed the fair use regime of the Peruvian Copyright Law. p. Copyright World. 207
.hk . 3 Complete text at http://www. 6.. Spain. 9 Source: World Copyright Law Report. Copyright World. May 2006. Malaysia. 10 Source: World Copyright Law Report. and • use does not represent a harm to the author's interests (determined that the defendant had infringed the plaintiff 's right to transform the work and imposed exemplary fines)34. and by application of the "three steps test": • exceptions are expressly contemplated in the law. May 2006. p. Asunción. Jacqueline Querciola and Bárbara Dollstadt of Berkemeyer. Source: Ms. Kuala Lumpur. and also in terms of the number of cases that parties all around the globe brought before the courts.legco. Both in terms of the number of bills discussed at congress level. including the translation thereof into different languages. 6. 7 Source: World Copyright Law Report 8 Source: World Copyright Law Report. all to the benefit of society at large. Luis Larramendi and Ms. 4 Source: Ms. • that use of the work is not made in attempt to normal forms of exploitation of the work concerned. The challenge for the future will be to ensure that copyright laws are enforced to the extent that holders of rights get satisfactory protection. 2 China To Up its Game. From the above it can be concluded that the year of 2006 has been a rather productive one globally. Karen Abraham of Shearn Delamore & Co.

209
. an irrevocable right held by authors and assignees – including publishers – to receive compensation for the exploitation of works). the exlusive right to authorize or prevent the exploitation of a work). which deals with remuneration rights for reproduction of works of authorship. SACM claimed that music publishers were failing to pay authors the agreed royalties. arguing that Article 26 bis imposed a unfair burden on them by triggering highter duties for the use of works. the author) cannot execute his or her exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the public communication of the work at the same time as the author so his or her assignee execute their own remuneration right – such a situation could lead to us being asked to pay multiple remuneration for a work. so proposed modifying the Copyright Act to enable authors to claim compensation directly form users. Groups of affected users filed actions against the bill. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 26 bis is completely different from the approach proposed by SACM. It also overlooks the fact that the remuneration system which it contemplates would co-exist with the patrimonial rights system. without defining when each would apply. as the owner of the patrimonial rights (ie. into the Copyright Act. provided they compensate the author and the assignee. Remuneration rights allow users to use works of authorship freely without having to obtain consent from the copyright holder. June 2006. Three years ago Congress passed a bill adopting Article 26bis.BILL HOPES TO PUT AN END TO REMUNERATION MUDDLE World Copyright Law Report. a remuneration right for the public communication of works. which is different from the patrimonial right of public performance (ie. Congress failed to consider the impact this would have on users and passed the bill without analyzing it in detail. It is evident that the two systems cannot be applied at the same time. The Chamber of Deputies has approved a bill to insert Article 26ter. The second chambers of the Supreme Court stated that Article 26 refers to a remuneration right (ie. in line with a proposal by the Sociedad de Autores y Compositores de Música (SACM).

many critics find the idea of adopting a system of remuneration for public communication alarming if it is applied to reproduction and distribution rights. if reproduction rights are classed as a remuneration right then. any third party may make copies of a work without authorization provided he or she pays a royalty. As it stands the harmful effects of Article 26 bis would simply be transferred to Article 26 ter. who execute a derived right” (Decision of the Commission of Culture of the Chamber of Deputies.In an attempt to resolve the issue. Finally. page 2) However. critics have pointed out several technical problems in the methodology of the initiative. The idea behind the initiative is that: “authors and composer of music may collect directly and independently. without affecting in any way the royalties belongig to the publishers of music. However. The only actual effect of the bill would be to involve users in the disputes between authors and assignees. may take criminal actions against anyone who infringes the reproduction right. Critics fear that such a situation could generate a greater amount of piracy and send the situation out of control. the Chamber of Deputies is analyzing the possible adoption of Article 26 ter. thorugh an attorney or by means of a collecting society to which they are members. under the Supreme Court’s interpretations. the royalties that correspond to the reproduction of its works. in addition to the one obtained indirectly as a result of assignment agreements that authors enter into with publishers or other assigness. Reproduction a method of exploitation controlled by the owner of the patrimonial rights: the owner may impede any use made by a third party of the work and. therefore. in order to extend the system of remuneration. The initiative also grants SACM’s demand for a direct royalty from users.
210
.

basing its decision on the fact that amended provisions are not self-executive (ie. The case has now been referred to the Supreme Court. However. The users also pointed out that by passing the amendments Congress unfairly altered the practices of a whole industry and heavily shifted the line of interest between authors and users in favour of the former. March 2005. In July 2003 Congress passed amendments to the Copyright Law granting remuneration rights for authors and performing artists. in particular. Under the amendments. In addition. The court of first instance dismissed the users’ actions. The reforms were designed to ensure that authors and artists benefit from the exploitation of their works. authors and artists are entitled to remuneration each time that a work they have written or performed is made the subject of public communication by any form or means. The users argued that the amendments are inconsistent with the Copyright Law and are unconstitutional as would oblige them to pay twice for the same act of public communication. the provisions on remuneration. filed an action seeking protection from the amendments and. the amended law fails to take account of whether the authors and performing artists own the patrimonial right of public communication or have assigned it to a third party. in particular the public communication of these works. the Ninth Circuit Court in Mexico City has overruled an earlier district court resolution and found that group of film exhibitors and broadcasters do have the right to bring a constitutional action against a copyright remuneration scheme. A group of users.FILM EXHIBITORS TRIUMPH AS REMUNERATION SCHEME GOES TO SUPREME COURT World copyright law report. Under the reasoning the right to bring a constitutional action would only be triggered if a civil judge ordered a user to remunerate an author or
211
. they require the application of a competent authority in order to produce harm and thus the right to seek constitutional relief). including film exhibitors and broadcasters. In Cinemas La Huasteca v Federal Congress (RA 296/2004 Amparo 1340/2003). the remuneration would inflict harm not only to the users but to the general public as well.

or
performance
was
the
subject
of
public
The group of users subsequently appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court.artist whose work communication. which has now overturned this resolution and referred the case to the Supreme Court for constitutional analysis.
212
. The Supreme Court’s decision is being eagerty awaited as it will set a valuable precedent on important questions related to royalties and other remunerative issues for the use of works and artistic performances.

Remuneration rights have existed to some extent. In the plaintiff's view. for having passed and published. While the reform essentially had a good purpose. Collecting societies lobbied for a remuneration system.
Mexico's Supreme Court has tried to clarify recent amendments to the law on copyright remuneration. In both cases the plaintiffs. inserting nonrenouncing remuneration rights accruable to authors and their assignees for all kinds of public communication of the works. Congress brought a major change. Similar rights were apparently granted to performers. aimed at ensuring that authors and performers benefit in economic terms from the utilization of the works. Americas Enforcement Focus 2005. as a sort of exception to patrimonial rights or a legal licence. and in particular.COURT FAILS TO ANSWER REMUNERATION QUESTIONS Managing Intellectual Property. for having included certain provisions granting authors and performing artists a right to "seek remuneration" for the public performance of their works or performances. a bill of amendments to the Copyright Law. sued the Mexican Congress. inspired by European doctrines. on July 23 2003. the fact is that Congress did not understand the reasons behind it. A botched reform Before the amendment. among other authorities. in the abstract. But it was the task of
213
. the bill of amendments was contrary to the constitutional rights that they hold as users of films and other copyrighted content and accordingly the bill was not applicable to them. The Supreme Court of Mexico recently rendered two judgments addressing remuneration rights in copyright law. Mexican copyright law was essentially based on the principles of patrimonial and moral rights. With the amendments. but subject to restrictions and other forms of control. Patrimonial rights imply the exclusive capacity of authors or tale holders to use or exploit their works-of-authorship and to prevent third parties from exploiting them without authorization. two film exhibitors. However. Public performance is one of the bundles of copyright rights of authors or copyright owners. Cinemex and Cinemas La Huasteca. the outcome of the two actions was that the Supreme Court upheld the bill.

These bodies now have to confront copyright owners — individuals and corporations — that can claim a fair and equitable remuneration for the public performance of the work. Reason dictates that authors and performers should obtain an income in exchange for the free use of their works and performances. adopted by many countries. In keeping with this. Congress just let the two systems coexist. remuneration right systems stand on two fundamental premises: (1) providing social access to culture by diminishing the adverse effects and impact of exclusive copyright rights. such as the analysis of comparative law. making monopolies appear more limited and less harmful. and
214
. Obviously this did not happen. causing legal uncertainty for film exhibitors. and (2) giving a practical solution to the everincreasing questions posed by technologies that are capable of disseminating information on a large scale. In keeping with this.Congress to reduce the general idea into a tangible and coherent legislative set of provisions. Remuneration has been regarded as a modern approach in copyright law. which is good for owners of rights. The Mexican Congress overlooked these considerations. as it abandons radical proclamations. The reason is that Congress did not impose limitations on the exclusive right of public performance in order to ensure that the remuneration system would be constructed over a solid legal structure. For example. consistent with the principles of the Copyright Law. copyright laws in various jurisdictions have carefully considered when utilization of works should be the subject of patrimonial rights compared to remuneration rights. private copying and droit de suite have been the subject of remuneration rights as well as the public performance or rental of sound recordings or of audiovisual productions. as well as for publishers and for users. in particular the issues deriving from remuneration rights in the field of public performance of copyrighted works (remuneration in other fields such as droit de suite would not necessarily represent an issue since there is no patrimonial right to be contradicted). broadcasting organizations or other companies doing public communication of works. in particular the laws of those national jurisdictions supposedly having influenced a remuneration regime to be transplanted into the Copyright Law of Mexico. It is obvious that legislators did not address the technical implications of the problem.

which could possibly imply extra payment. Accordingly. would be the beneficiaries of the remuneration right. By chance — rather than careful technical analysis — audiovisual works might have escaped from the messy new rules as. if it is taken into account that in accordance with the Copyright Law. authors of contributions to audiovisual productions (such as writers or composers) would be impeded from stopping the exhibition or other forms of public performance of the film. that cannot be regarded as a Mexican legislative invention as it was rather the response given by the more studious legislator of the Law of 1963 to the challenge posed when implementing the standards of the Rome Convention. before the amendment. But the inconsistencies did not end there. Accordingly. Neighbouring rights of performing artists might fall within the exception as well. Of course. the Copyright Law already considered certain remuneration rules with express limitations on patrimonial rights. the language that the legislator of 2003 added to the existing regime was confusing. The exhaustion of the patrimonial right can be regarded as precisely the type of limitation that the law needed to impose to shift a patrimonial right to a remuneration right. for certain
215
. The Supreme Court's analysis The Supreme Court's analysis of the amendments is certainly more methodical and thus better than that of Congress — whole analysis did not exist at all but the two decisions are still not as exhaustive and interpretative as expected. considering that not only authors. but their assignees also. but would still have the right to obtain some income from the exhibitors or broadcasters. The implications of these issues grew given the multiple options that Congress provided by inserting rules conferring at the same time real and credit-like rights.in addition an exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the performance. The two resolutions are contradictory in certain aspects (in view of structural organization rules. One of the new provisions states expressly that the author and the assignee shall enjoy the right to remuneration. the right of public performance becomes exhausted when the artist has consented to the fixation of his or her interpretation. by stating that exhaustion would only be possible after the artists receive their income for the public performance of their interpretations.

The two chambers of the Supreme Court concentrated heavily on the notions of transmissibility of copyright rights of an economic nature as well as the likelihood that these rights could not be renounced. In both cases. the already existing patrimonial right provisions of the law. that does not entail that the same right is concurrently owned by the transferring party and the transferee because when the former assigns the right in virtue of an agreement it "ceases being the title holder" and the latter "becomes the new holder in terms of what is agreed". On the other hand. while the second chamber addressed Cinemex). could have noticed the intrinsic objectives of the amendments and the flaws that Congress introduced. the first chamber addressed Cinemas La Huasteca. For the second chamber a right that cannot be renounced is a right that cannot be transferred. neither of the resolutions addressed the conflicting questions of remuneration versus exclusive rights. The first chamber agreed that authors are legally entitled to transfer their rights of economic nature to an assignee. but is divided into two chambers of five ministers each. it being impossible that authors and assignees can hold the rights "simultaneously". First of all. the ordinary reader of the reformed text could easily. at least while the author is alive. because that they cannot be renounced. except perhaps copyright specialists. The approach was different though. The Ministers of the Supreme Court possibly fell into that assumption by missing the fine and subtle issues that the amendments entailed and concentrating instead on the more superficial aspects of the discussion. the second chamber found that the new rights could only be transferred mortis causa. as it was the mandate of Congress that the remuneration system supercedes in cases like that. At first glance. the Supreme Court arrives at the conclusion that the newly adopted rights do not affect film exhibitors since it is the purpose of copyright
216
. the rulings have indeed given a general impression that the remuneration and patrimonial right systems cannot apply to the same event (the same act of public performance). but mistakenly. This affirmation is based on the legal connotation of the word "assignment" (in Spanish causahabiencia). Here. Nevertheless. conclude that it only repeats. The reason may have been that the amended provisions are confusing to the extent that no one. unnecessarily and ambiguously.matters the Supreme Court does not act as a whole body.

217
. A missed opportunity The Supreme Court of Mexico had a unique opportunity to dictate useful guidelines in connection with the new regime of remuneration rights. In other words. they are vague in how the assignment and transmissibility issues have been dealt with. considering how brutally Congress handled the Copyright Law. Third. To use a common expression. they lack a thorough discussion defining the superceding nature of remuneration rights over patrimonial rights in the public performance of works-of-authorship. the loose ends were tightened but not completely fastened.law to protect authors and performing artists with the granting of economic rights. as they should have been. they do not define whether the remuneration right system should apply solely in cases where the author or performers have assigned their patrimonial rights or if the system could be extended to cases where the authors or performers have not assigned their patrimonial rights. reserving for themselves the power to authorize third parties to publicly perform works or interpretations. Second. the sentences never stated which rights could be transferred — patrimonial rights. the Supreme Court was not clear if it is possible to transmit remuneration rights (inter vivos or mortis causa). For example. but were definitively inconclusive. would have expected the Supreme Court to be more focused and exhaustive. First. The two decisions rendered responded to some of the questions that plaintiffs brought to the Court's attention. remuneration rights or both. or if this latter right is assignable as well) or if both can be the subject of transmission. which did not happen in the end. The copyright community. including creators and publishers as well as society at large. The rulings of the Supreme Court are silent or unclear in many respects. if only patrimonial rights can be transmitted (an author assigns the patrimonial right of public performance to a publisher and is then entitled to a remuneration right that cannot be transmitted.

artists and record producers). would have been obliged to pay. It would have been unfair to require people to pay compensation for the equipment that they use to make such copies. the bill:
•
entitles authors and artists to claim royalties for the secondary use of their copyright works. The Mexican Congress has passed a bill amending the Copyright Act 1996 in order to grant additional rights to authors and holders of neighbouring rights (eg. Members of the electronics industry strongly opposed this measure because they. The proposal was dropped from the bill as there is already an exception that allows people to make a copy of a work for private purpose without having to compensate the right holder. provides for a resale royalty. They will be able to claim for any public use or performance of their works.
218
. contrary to the Constitution and the rule of law. as manufacturers and vendors or reproduction equipment. and increase the copyright term to the life of the author plus 100 years – an increase of years.
•
•
The original draft of the bill also included a right of remuneration for authors when private copying occurs. Brokers and galleries will be required to inform artist or their representatives about any sales of their works so that they can obtain the correct compensation. the Copyright Law has already been amended to protect technological protective and digital right management measures. In addition. aimed at protecting the creators of works of fine art are similar creations. Among other things. regardless of whether they hold the corresponding rights. Once this term has expired. October 2004.AUTHORS GAIN CONTROVERSIAL ROYALTIES RIGHTS UNDER NEW BILL World Copyright Law Report. This measure has been strongly criticized for extending property rights to situations where ownership no longer exists. the government has the power to collect fees in relation to the use of works that are no longer protected.

there seems to be no need to implement a private-copying levy system if the trends is towards technological protection models. the industry has been lobbying the president to use his power of vendor to completely stop the promulgation and publication of the bill. although the electronic industry opposed it.
219
. It will be interesting to see how successful these protests are. Thus. The bill received strong support form authors and collecting societies. Even though the provision giving compensation to authors for private copying was removed.whether they are used on or offline.

many of them works of authorship themselves. The Mexican Copyright Law considers television programmes as a category of copyrighted works. September 2004. Likewise. the authors of works participating as contributors to the making of the audiovisual production shall "assign with exclusivity" the patrimonial rights of reproduction and public performance to the producer. giving them certain limited rights over the public performance of the same. by which if not stated otherwise in the agreement.THE STATUS OF TELEVISION PROGRAMMES IN MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW The Asialaw IP Review. Congress first used the concept of TV programmes to identify a genre of works.
220
. and in 1963. in terms of the former being a species of the latter. The Copyright Law of 1996 has defined audiovisual works as those expressed by means of associated images. for use in connection with the audiovisual production. For example. However. writer. The Copyright Law regards TV programmes as an audiovisual production composed of different materials. the 1996 statute listed audiovisual works as a genre also. the Copyright Law of 1996 introduced a "contract for audiovisual production" provision. photographers or cartoonists as authors of their contributions to the TV programme. That consideration passed on to the Law of 1996. The Law of 1956 mentioned TV as a technology capable of disseminating ideas. which is currently in force. composer. who will become the holder of the patrimonial rights thereof. 'coordination'. considering that the general provisions of audiovisual works are applicable to TV programmes. made by a number of contributors. perceptible by technical devices that make them produce a sense of movement. and 'responsibility' of a producer. under the 'initiative'. making it appear that there is no difference between TV programmes and audiovisual works. with or without sound.
Producers of TV programmes in Mexico need to be careful when preparing the content of their shows because the legal aspects are particularly important. Congress has indeed recognized that. the law regards the director. TV programmes would naturally fit into this description.

The practice in Mexico, as it is in other countries, would be that TV programmes are the subjects of distribution to broadcasters for public performance. The broadcaster obtains the right to disseminate the programme in virtue of a licence, in the licensed territory, and under the terms and conditions that the parties set upon. The broadcaster would generally pay royalties directly to the producer in conformance with agreement. In many cases the producer of the TV show is the broadcaster of the same and royalties would be distributed in a different form. Something that bears mention, from the legal side, is that under the Copyright Law the broadcaster would be holder of neighbouring rights in connection with the broadcasting of the TV show. This right is accrued regardless of whether the broadcaster would have copyright rights over the content of the TV programme. Producers of TV programmes need to be careful when preparing the content of their shows because the legal aspects are particularly important. A production of this kind would entail the need of authorizations from authors, artists or even ordinary people, who may be owners of the materials used for the show or that are shown in the same, without necessarily being actors or performers. Formalities tend to be relaxed in case of live transmissions, like news, contests or interview programmes that are not filmed or if filmed, would not be subject to repeated broadcastings. In those cases, the participants would be considered to grant implied consents to the transmission by the fact of having accepted to appear before cameras. Failure to obtain an agreement from the holders of rights could expose the producer to serious legal action. Among others, the following should be taken into account: Copyright Actions. A producer making a programme that employs copyrighted material, without having obtained authorization from the right holder, may be subject to infringement actions. Generally, under the Copyright Law the use of copyrighted material for the elaboration of a TV production would be regarded a reproduction. Any unauthorized reproduction would necessarily lead to copyright infringement. Actions could also accrue when suppliers of materials for use in productions are not the copyright owners thereof and did not obtain consent from the same.
221

Performer Rights Actions. The Copyright Law refers to the rights of performers as neighbouring rights. Performers are thus mainly the artists that give interpretation to the work or that generally perform the same by acting, singing or playing musical instruments. They can also be mimes or the performers of folkloric arts. TV programmes need to consider that actors, singers or players are entitled to bring legal actions when they film performances or when they reproduce filmed performances without authorization. In such cases performers would be entitled to bring actions opposing to the filming or its reproduction. Rights of Self Image and Portrait. This is a right in the Copyright Law having a wide connotation, and it is very confusing at the same time. Pictures of people can only be published with their consent. From a first impression, the law would apparently refer to the mere 'static' view of the person in a portrait, photograph or painting. However, the law gives more room for interpretation that the right to oppose would extend to the 'image' of a person. There is not a clear idea of what the law understands as the 'image' of a person, but the right of 'self image' should never go beyond the notion of 'portrait', which implies a 'static' vision, making the statutory interpretation consistent and clear. In any event, producers should have in mind that the individuals whose portraits, photos or pictures have been reproduced, are entitled to take legal action when they have not granted their consent. Privacy Laws. The Federal Civil Code has considered a so-called moral right, which is essentially a personal right protecting ordinary persons from disparagement or other misconduct inflicted by third parties, that would cause offence to their names or likeness or attempt against its privacy or personal life. Sometimes TV producers have abused the rights of individuals when making a program, giving room to personal actions under civil laws. Confidentiality. TV producers have frequently employed materials that are not public or that have not been previously disclosed. Owners of such materials have sued the producers under the argument that the material had remained confidential and undisclosed until the producer used it. Such actions would normally fail, unless the owner of the material is able to prove having entered into an agreement with the producer or with the person having supplied the material to the
222

producer for use in connection with the show, and that the agreement had a clause by which the producer or the person providing the material agreed not to disclose the contents of the same. The obligation by the producer or supplier not to disclose would have to be express, although such an obligation could eventually be implied, if it can be demonstrated that the intention of the parties was to keep the information confidential. Jurisdiction and Venue. Generally, actions resulting from breach of contract, confidentiality, privacy or related issues, would have to be filed before the local courts where the default occurred or the defaulting party has its domicile for legal purposes. Copyright and neighbouring rights claims are federal and would essentially be brought against the alleged infringer before an administrative or court of federal jurisdiction. Criminal actions would only be possible for copyright piracy, when there is a clear indication of bad faith and such an action would be under federal jurisdiction as well. It would not be difficult to bring an action before the Mexican courts when producer is domiciled in Mexico or has produced the TV programme within Mexican territory. Actions can still be brought in Mexico against the local broadcaster who shows the TV. The situation becomes more difficult when the producer and the broadcaster are located abroad. In that case, under actor rei forum sequitur, the plaintiff could perhaps take action in the jurisdiction where the producer or broadcaster is found by invoking Mexican law. An alternative would be bringing the action before a court in Mexico and request that, under the New York or possibly the Hague Conventions, the Mexican court attracts jurisdiction by calling the foreign party or parties to its jurisdiction. The foregoing would certainly be done by serving first notice via letters rogatory and requesting the foreign partyto indicate a domicile in Mexico for further communications.

223

ONE LITTLE WORD Copyright World, February 2004.

Luis Schmidt offers a thorough analysis of a new law which has simultaneously upset the status quo in Mexico, and moved the country away from the international community In Summary * Mexico's 1996 Copyright Law, introduced to bring the nation in line with global obligations and modern practice, has recently been modified following pressure from the country's collecting societies. *The legislature, by accepting the argument of the lobbyists and falling to exercise due care with its language has overturned the status quo previously enjoyed, and disrupted the necessary balance between the rights of authors and creators and commercial users *In article 26 bis, for example, the use of "y" (and) instead of "o" (or) has resulted in ambuguity and illegality, with the legislature creating a situation where both an author and her or his assignee could benefit from the public performance of the work, notwithstanding that the author had previously transferred the corresponding rights to the assignee *The author argues that Mexico's copyright las has fallen victim to the period of transition the country is undergoing following recent changes in government. Populism and influential interest groups have meant that an ill-conceived law has passes, even in the face of direct opposition by Mexico's president 2003 is a year that the intellectual property community of Mexico will long remember. The times that the country has been facing show a political environment, embraced by the winds of democracy, however struggling in a battle against the shadows of dictatorship that still contaminate society. This analysis recognises that the battle has touched IP, hitting it hard and making it shake and tremble. Muddy environments do not provide a good basis for intellectual property rights to develop. The so-called
224

transition period that Mexico confronts has triggered confusion among the IP community, and has put the system under threat. What has been achieved during recent years in terms of legislative improvement could easily disappear. In Mexico, certain groups rely on the values of nationalism and protectionism to show that they are on the side of the people. However, this front hides the perversity of their individual political or economic interest. This article will explain how copyright law was recently used for these purposes, and how that has affected some sectors of industry as well as society at large. Not long ago, collecting societies in Mexico collaborated to work towards a strategic common goal: seeking amendments to the Copyright Law of 1996, the statute currently in force that deals with the rights of authors and performing artists1. This law imposed restrictions on the rights of authors and artists, prompting a number of collecting societies, led by SACM (Sociedad de Autores y Compositores de Música), to lobby before Congress in search of new sources of income from the use of authored works. However, achieving that objective would only be possible following a full reform of the Copyright Law. Accordingly, collecting societies began the process of organising meetings and conferences, inviting representatives of government agencies and the legislature to speak or simply attend. The general purpose was conveying the message that the Copyright Law of 1996 did not fulfill the intention to protect authors from the evilness of cultural industries. That line of thought attracted the attention of a number of politicians that undertook to present a bill to the Congress. Support came immediately from certain senators, mostly members of the political party which had ruled in Mexico for more than 70 years, and first lost power just three years ago. The societies' message won support from this quarter easily, because, firstly, the message raising voices in favour of the author as the weaker part of a relationship with the industry provided a convenient flagship for politicians who look for popularity. Secondly, collecting societies, but SACM in particular, have a strong political influence in their own right, and this was used negotiate
225

directly with the government. In Mexico, collecting societies have clearly benefited from corporativism that has dominated the country for various decades. It is true that the Copyright Law of 1996 was not at all popular with the collecting societies. In a number of its provisions, the determination of the legislature to obtain a balanced solution to the conflict of interests amongst authors and users of works is clearly visible. Accordingly, the law reflected the adoption of different formulas to prevent the rights of authors being employed to impair those of the users. Given that framework, rights were made subject to certain restrictions2 and concepts to redefinition3. More comfortable with the primitive ways of former statutes, the collecting societies were totally opposed to the equations that the Congress implemented in 1996. While arguing that the law had left authors and artists unprotected, the collecting societies were in reality pushing for reform with the intention of returning Mexico's copyright industries to the past. The amendment In a plenary session of November 8, 2001, a bill executed by various senators was put for analysis and discussion to the so-called "Commission of Education and Culture" of the Chamber of Senators4. The bill would propose amendments to articles of the Copyright Law, including provisions dealing with the communication rights of authors and performing artists. The idea behind it was not only to enhance the benefit authors and artists benefit could gain from the use and exploitation of works through the public performance thereof, but to introduce new or additional forms of income. It took more than one year for the Commission to submit a response to the chamber for approval. The report on which the answer was presented, included suggestions to the Senate for approving additions to the law, was published at the Gazette of Congress, No 85 of December 12, 2002. Concerning the right of public performance, the Commission considered the need for change:

226

"To guarantee that the rights of authors or of their assignees, would be recognized whenever any work of their creation has been communicated or transmitted by any means, contributing to give strength to the figure of collecting societies".5 The Comission further considered that the original text of the law was unclear as to whether the author had a "right to obtain a royalty from the public communication of the works", as it was indeed the case of performing artists. It found it unfair that performing artists should enjoy more rights from the exploitation of works than the authors would. In line with the above, the Commission proposed the following amendment: 'Article 26 bis. The author and his assignee shall enjoy the right to a royalty from the public communication or transmission of the work by any means. The right of the author cannot be renounced. The royalty shall be paid directly by whom the public communication or transmission of the works is made, directly to the author, or to the collecting society representing him, in accordance to what provided in articles 200 and 202, paragraphs V and VI of the Law " (emphasis added).6 In a similar fashion, the Commission agreed to an amendment of the work-for-hire provision by adding a new article. However, apart from brief statements, the report did not offer technical reasons why modifications had to be made. The report stated: "The reform as proposed does not make the work-for-hire provision disappear as it simply grants the author of musical works the legal certainty that the current text took away".7 The report also recognised that work-for-hire is a vehicle that producers of audiovisual works frequently employ to deprive authors of musical works of their patrimonial rights, and to circumvent the rules and restrictions relating to the assignment of rights. Because of this, the report said, work-for-hire provisions worked in opposition to the law on transmissions, designed to protect the authors of musical works. This required urgent amendment, according to the authors of the report, so the authors could benefit in the means and proportion that the work becomes successful in the market.

227

Accordingly, the provision as proposed would read as follows: "Article 83 bis. In addition to what provided in the foregoing article, the person participating in the production of a musical work in virtue of a remuneration, shall have the right to pay any royalties that generate from the public communication or transmission of the work, in terms of articles 26 bis and 117 bis of the Law. To consider that the work is made for hire, the terms of the contract shall have to be clear and precise, and in case of doubt, the interpretation favoring the author will be preserved. The author shall have also the right to draft his own agreement when a work is being requested to him".8 Finally, the Committee found that reform was required concerning the rights of public communication of performing artists. The intention was to make it clear that the rights of artists could be "assigned" (sic) in the terms that they were contracted. Another reason given to justify reform was that the artists had to "recover" their right of public performance, in a manner that it could not be renounced. In addition to that, article 118 would be modified, so that in consistency with the World Performers and Phonogram Treaty, it would state that said rights become exhausted "as long as the user that make use of the tangible objects for a purpose of gain and make the corresponding payment".9 In light of the above, the Commission would propose the following additions: “Article 117 bis. Performing artists have a right that cannot be renounced to a royalty for the use and exploitation of their performances made with the purpose of direct or indirect gain, by any means, public performance or form of disposal." “Article 118. Said rights shall be considered exhausted once the performer has authorized the incorporation of his performance onto a visual, sound, or audiovisual fixation, as long as whoever uses the tangible objects for a purpose of gain makes the corresponding payment".10 The report of the Commission was taken to plenary debate before the Chamber of Senators, and was approved on December 12, 2002. The
228

bill was then sent to the Chamber of Deputies, where discussions were held from January until April 2003. The Chamber of Deputies passed the original draft with slight modifications — specifically to articles 117 bis11 11812 - and on April 29, 2003, returned it to the Senate for final approval. The following day, the Senate delivered the bill to the President of the Republic for promulgation. The President objected vehemently, arguing that the promulgation and publication of the bill should not take place. He is reported to have considered exercising the power of veto, but this failed to eventuate, and the bill was signed into law and published on July 23, 2003, becoming effective one day after.13 As could have been expected, the ill-conceived amendments to the Copyright Law of 1996 will now have significant negative impacts. Whether Congress acted in good faith is something that should perhaps not be doubted. However, suspicion naturally arises from the fact that the legislature ignored the position of the users of the works, and were careless about the interest of society. Congress should have borne in mind that copyrights are very complex subjects that can easily confuse anyone that is alien to the practice of that field of the law. Under that premise, the legislative process should have been more indepth and exhaustive, and discussion should have considered all possible intervening factors. Otherwise, the resulting product would reflect just a partial and one-sided view of the picture, as it evidently was the case.

The law as it was The Copyright Law of Mexico has been framed around a notion of fairness, where the rights of authors are subject to restrictions to protect the interests of the users of works, but principally, those of the society at large. Rights and obligations are thus required to meet a balance, and the duty of Congress, as well as of the Courts, is to procure that this is achieved. Consistent with that goal, the 1996 Congress established a system to protect the rights of authors from a patrimonial and personal angle.14 Moral rights were asserted to protect the author as the intellectual creator of the work. They cannot be transferred, sold or assigned,
229

because they are inherent and integral to the individual who has created the work — the author — who holds them permanently and perpetually, during and after his or her life. It is not possible for the author to renounce his or her moral rights; they cannot be pledged, and they never prescribe.15 On the other hand, patrimonial rights vest originally on the author — subject to the exceptions recognized in the law — and can be transferred, licensed, or in other way disposed of, and its duration is temporary.16 The Copyright Law has divided patrimonial rights into different categories, including reproduction17, distribution18, public performance19 and display20 and the making of derivative works.21 In regard to the transfer of patrimonial rights, the Copyright Law recognises both assignments and licenses as the fundamental forms by which rights can be disposed of22. Accordingly, authors are legally entitled to make transfer of patrimonial rights to third parties, who will then become the owners of said rights. These latter are considered to be "secondary" or "derivative" owners of rights:"causahabientes" as they are known in Spanish. The difference between "original" and "secondary" or "derivative" makes clear that there can be owners that acquire the title by having created the work, and others by virtue of a transfer of rights. As mentioned previously, transfers can be made through either assignments — which implies a full transfer of title and licenses responding to a partial or limited transmission of rights, where the author would keep control over the use or exploitation of the work made by the licensee. The Copyright Law considers as an exception to the general rule that the author is the "original" owner of patrimonial rights, and that applies when the work was made for hire. Under that rule, whoever commissions the creation of a work or a part thereof to someone, under employment23 or as a freelance24, and makes retribution to that person for the contribution, can be regarded as the "original" owner of the patrimonial rights. The meaning of this is that the commissioner or employer becomes the owner ab initio and without the need of a transfer. On the other hand, the author or "intellectual creator" (in Spanish "creador intelectual" or "colaborador
230

remunerado"), as the law and doctrine refer to the individual contributing to the creation of the work, is not entitled to any patrimonial rights, and shall keep the right of paternity. All the above is in conformance with the framework created by international treaties. For example, article 6 bis of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (Paris Act)25, as well as article XI of the Interamerican Convention of Washington26, recognise the distinction between moral and patrimonial rights, and the possibility that these latter be transferred through assignments or otherwise. However, the North American Free Trade Agreement in article 1705(3)27, sets out something of particular relevance: "3. Each Party shall provide that for copyright and related rights: (a) Any person acquiring or holding economic rights may freely and separately transfer such rights by contract for purposes of their exploitation and enjoyment by the transferee; and (b) Any person acquiring or holding such economic rights by virtue of a contract, including contracts of employment underlying the creation of works and sound recordings, shall be able to exercise those rights in its own name and enjoy fully the benefits derived from those rights". Audiovisual works The Copyright Law of 1996 refers to the audiovisual work — which includes the cinematographic work - as a complex production resulting from the integration of different works made by a number of contributors, under the "initiative", "coordination" and "responsibility" of a producer.28 The Law regards audiovisual works as independent from all the particular contributions supporting it, and confers upon the producers the patrimonial rights thereof29. Likewise, the Law regards the director, the writers, composers, photographers and cartoonists, as the authors of the audiovisual works.30 The authors are the subjects to patrimonial rights on their contributions to the audiovisual production. However, the rights are subject to restrictions.31 For example, the law refers to the "contract for audiovisual production" as that by which:

231

"The authors assign to the producer with exclusivity unless otherwise agreed, the property rights of reproduction, distribution, public communication and subtitling of the audiovisual work. The authors of musical works are exempt from the above".32 From the above it can be obtained that, under a "contract for audiovisual production" the authors or holders of rights shall "assign with exclusivity" four different patrimonial rights, including public performance. As a result, the producer will acquire said rights in connection with the audiovisual production, which means that it will only have the right to use the contribution when incorporated as part of the audiovisual production. Likewise, once the authors or their assignees (causahabientes) have consented to contribute to the production of the audiovisual work, it will no longer be possible for them to reproduce, distribute or perform their contributions to the public.33 This means that the author or titleholder of the right shall have the option to assign the patrimonial rights over the contribution — excepting a musical work — to the producer in virtue of a "production agreement", assign it to a third party or hold the rights. In the first case, if the author has entered into an "audiovisual production agreement", the right of public performance on the contribution as incorporated to the audiovisual production will be transferred automatically to the producer, as are the rights of reproduction, distribution and subtitling. In the second case, any right subject to an assignment would have to be specified in an agreement. And in the third case, the rights would vest with the author who would be entitled to exercise them at her or his own will. The practice in the cinematographic industry of Mexico, as it is the case of other countries, dictates that the producer will grant a license to a third party for the distribution of the film. The distributor will then authorise its exhibition in movie theaters for a royalty or fee. On the other hand, an exhibitor shall be bound to pay royalties to the producer for the rights that it holds on the cinematographic production, and the particular contributions owned in virtue of "audiovisual production contracts" or work-for-hire agreements.

232

The author will have the right to collect for the contribution to the extent that she has not transferred them to the producer or a third party, and the transferee will have rights on the contribution provided that it obtained them from the author. In order to collect, the authors or titleholders will have the right to be represented by a collecting society or other representative.34 In those cases, the collecting society was required to show to the exhibitor, as the user of the work, that the authors that it represents actually hold the rights.35 The case of performing artists is slightly different. Under the Copyright Law they hold a right to "oppose" that cannot be disposed of, in contrast to the rights of authors. A performing artist shall be entitled to essentially impede third parties from making unauthorized fixations — audiovisual for example — of their performances onto an objective medium or make a reproduction or public performance of said unauthorised fixation. However, the Copyright Law states that the right to oppose to a reproduction or public performance shall become exhausted, once the artist has consented to the fixation of the performance.36 The reforms and their impact As has been explained, the amendments that Congress passed and approved will certainly transform the modus operandi in the cinematographic industry, as well as any other industry dealing with the public performance of audiovisual or musical productions. Unfortunately it cannot be expected that the impact will be in the positive. As will be addressed below, articles 26 bis, 83 bis, 117 bis and 118, all provide that authors and artists will increase the chance to obtain an income for the public communication of their works or performances. However, that noble purpose has been obscured by different factors of a technical and substantive nature. Article 26 bis. This article could produce an unpredictable yet devastating effect. The use of a conjunction "y" (and) instead of a disjunctive "o" (or) cannot be regarded as a minor or innocuous drive or twist. The problem is meaningful. If the legislators had chosen to use an "o", article 26 bis would have been redundant and repetitive, considering that the Copyright Law
233

already confers a right of public performance upon the author or assignee.37 However, the fact that article 26 bis used an "y" has triggered ambiguity and illegality. It will allow both an author and her or his assignee, to benefit from the public performance of the work, notwithstanding that the author had previously transferred the corresponding rights to the assignee. However, the consequences could go further. In case of cinematographic or audiovisual works, authors would be entitled to a patrimonial right of public performance, regardless as to whether they assigned the rights on their contributions to the producer — by virtue of a production agreement — or to someone else. In this latter event, the assignee would have the right to seek royalties from the public communication of the work in parallel to the author. To make things worse, the law did not impose any limitation as to who the assignee could be. That would necessarily give the chance that the author assigns the rights to any third party, including a friend or a relative, who would then be entitled to receive a royalty in the same terms and conditions as the author would have. This would, of course, be possible in addition to the rights that the producer has over the audiovisual work per se. And if it is considered that every single author whose work is included in the production could make his or her own assignments, the problem could become exponential. Users of works, such as film exhibitors, will be the resulting targets of that game. The question arises, why did Congress employed the conjunction "y" instead of the disjunctive "o", if, from legislative history it can clearly be drawn that the legislature of 2003 wanted to give the provision an exclusive rather an inclusive approach? The records available simply do not answer this question. However, it is a given that Congress made a change as a response to the lobbying of collecting societies. Whatever the reason was, as it was mentioned above, Congress did just ignore what other groups of interest had to say. Article 83 bis. This provision shall produce nearly the same results as those of article 26 bis. Congress introduced article 83 bis as a

234

complement to article 83 of the Copyright Law. Article 83 refers to the figure of work-for-hire by stating: "Unless otherwise agreed, the natural or legal person who commissions the production of a work, or produces it with the remunerated collaboration of others, shall enjoy title to the property rights in such work, and shall have the corresponding powers concerning the disclosure, integrity of the work and collection on these type of creations". In Congress' report, it was stated that the individual contributing to the work under commission should be entitled to seek royalties in parallel to the holder of the rights, and that that should not distort the figure of work-for-hire."38 However, that assumption is incorrect. As mentioned previously, under work-for-hire, the party commissioning the intellectual creation becomes the original owner of the patrimonial rights. That can be interpreted in the sense that contributor has no one single right over the work and its exploitation that can be disposed of. It is hard to see how, under the copyright law, the contributor could claim rights over the public performance of the work, in parallel to the owner of the rights. From the users perspective, this situation would not have been fair, as it would bear obligations in front of two entities having exactly the same right for the same cause or reason. Articles 117 bis and 118. The changes made to article 118 are so vague that have made it hard to understand. Article 118 states the neighboring rights of performer artists as follows: “Artist interpreters or performers have the right to oppose: I Public communication of their interpretations or performances; II Fixation of their interpretations or performances on a material medium, and III Reproduction of the fixation of their interpretations or performances. The foregoing rights shall be considered to have exhausted once the artist interpreter or performer has authorized the incorporation of her performance or interpretation on a visual, sound or audiovisual fixation".

235

The last paragraph of article 118, in general terms would state that the right to oppose to the exploitation of the interpretation or performance of a public performance — in a public communication, for example, shall become exhausted when the author has consented to the fixation of the performance on audiovisual or other media. It is understood that the legislature used the expression "consent to fixation" as a criterion to distinguish when the communication right can get exhausted from when it cannot. Accordingly, performers would have a right to oppose to the public communication of their performances if they did not authorise the fixation of the performances. However, said right would be exhausted if the artist granted consent to the fixation. The reform introduced a new factor to the rule stated above, with the intention to liberalise the exhaustion restriction, to the benefit of the performers. In keeping with this, Congress added that exhaustion of "said rights" (it must refer to those in article 118), shall be produced "as long as whoever uses the tangible objects for a purpose of gain makes the corresponding payment". The addition cannot be regarded anything else but absurd or a nonsense. In the first place, the use of a performance — for example, in virtue of a public performance — can occur after an authorised fixation has been made. However, the paragraph that Congress added suggests to the contrary. It is absurd to suggest that the right will become exhausted at the time that fixation has been authorised and made, but subject to a later payment, when the public communication occurs. Another interpretation is that the user shall have to pay to get the right of public performance after a payment has been made. However, why then consider a right that becomes exhausted (by a fixation) requires of a further act (a payment), so that the user can exploit the performance? What really determines exhaustion, fixation or payment? Congress appeared to be in favor of a double exhaustion theory. A further technical flaw would arise from the fact that Congress established that the subject of the use is a "material object”. The fact that Congress imposed an obligation to pay when a right got exhausted is against logic and the law. If exhausted a right, the user should be free to exploit that subject matter without having to pay. The
236

question arises why the law was modified to create contradictions if it had remained clear since article 118 was adopted in 1996? Article 117 bis appears to reiterate what article 118 states, by just adding that the right to remuneration cannot be renounced. However, it is questionable under Mexican Law whether a patrimonial right cannot be renounced. CONCLUSION From the arguments presented herein, it can be understood that the amendments that Congress made were not thoroughly meditated upon as to the impact that they could produce. They seem to have been thrown without any thought as to whether they would be compatible with the copyright law and system, from the technical and substantive points of view. As has been mentioned throughout this article, it is expected that said practices will inflict harm not only on the exhibitors of films and other corporations devoted to the public communication of works, but also to the public in general. By imposing the measure to broaden the options of authors and artists to receive more money for the use of their works, Congress not only altered the good practices of an industry, but it attempted to move against a system of law. The dividing line between the rights of authors and users was heavily shifted to the side of the former, to the detriment of society. It cannot be doubted that Mexico has taken a backward step by changing the law to upgrade rights in sacrifice to the principle of legal certainty. Congress has innocently played the tune dictated by a specific interest group, with the achievement of an obvious outcome. The transition period, and the duality in which theis country has been immersed, have thus captured copyright law as its first victim. What will be next? Notes
1 Published at the Federal Government Gazette of December 24, 1996, entering into force on March 25, 1997. 2 Among the restrictions the Copyright Law imposed more and clearer limitations on copyright ability (articles I I and subsequent), transfer and ownership of patrimonial rights (articles 24 and subsequent, 30 and subsequent, and 83 and 84); termination (article 29); contracting (articles 42 and subsequent); and fair use (articles 148, 149 and 150). 237

3 Fundamental concepts, such as authorship, originality, fixation, work-ofauthorship and exploitation were defined in a more clear fashion. 4 Gazette of Congress (Senate), No. 85, December 12, 2002, P.I. 5 Gazette of Congress, No. 85, p. 6. 6 Gazette of Congress, No. 85, p. I I. 7 Gazette of Congress, No. 85, p. 9. 8 Gazette of Congress, No. 85, p. 13. 9 Gazette of Congress, No. 85, p. 10. 10 Gazette of Congress, No. 85, p. 14. 11 The Chamber of Deputies deleted a portion of this article, as it was contrary to the provisions of the law relating to representation of artists and collection of royalties. 12 The original version of the bill contemplated the total deletion of the last paragraph of article 118 and the adding of an article 118 bis, which was even less structured and technical than article 118 as finally reformed. Article 118 bis was disapproved at the Chamber of Senators itself and rather substituted by article 118. It is very curious to see that article 118 bis did not only referred to a right of public communication restricted to direct performances or broadcasting transmissions, but to on-line or internet transmissions as well. However, as article 118 bis was disregarded, the Senate stopped further discussing rights for performers on a digital environment. 13 Published at the Official Government Gazette by Decree on July 23, 2003. 14 Copyright Law of 1996, article II. 15 Copyright Law of 1996, articles 18 and subsequent. 16 Copyright Law of 1996, articles 24 and subsequent. 17 Copyright Law of 1996, article 27(I). 18 Copyright Law of 1996, article 27 (IV). 19 Copyright Law of 1996, article 27 (II) — public communication — and (III) — public transmission-. 20 Copyright Law of 1996, article 27 (II)(b). 21 Copyright Law of 1996, article 27 (VI). 22 Copyright Law of 1996, article 30. 23 Copyright Law of 1996, article 84. 24 Copyright Law of 1996, article 83. 25 Paris Act of July 24, 1971 and published at the Official Gazette of the Federal Government on January 24, 1975. 26 Inter American Convention on Literary, Scientific and Artistic Works, signed in Washington D.C. on June 22, 1946, and published at the Official Gazette of the Federal Government of Mexico on October 24, 1947. 27 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed on December 17, 1992, approved and ratified by the Senate of Mexico on November 22, 1993 and published in the Official Gazette of December 20, 1993. 28 Copyright Law of 1996, articles 94 and 98. 29 Copyright Law of 1996, articles 95 and 97. 30 Copyright Law of 1996, article 97. 31 Copyright Law of 1996, article 99. 32 Copyright Law of 1996, article 68. 33 Copyright Law of 1996, article 99. 238

34 Copyright Law of 1996, articles 192, 195, 196 and 197. 35 As implied from articles 195 through 201 and those relative to ownership of rights of the Copyright Law of 1996. 36 Copyright Law of 1996, article 118. 37 Copyright Law of 1996, article 27(11) and (III). 38 Gazette of Congress, No. 85, p.p. 9 and 10.

239

In April and May 2003. The measure has been strongly criticized for attempting. The electronics industry strongly opposed to the measure. regardless whether they hold the corresponding rights or have disposed of them in any form or means. liability can trigger only when people have directly infringed a copyright. in particular the public communication thereof. 1. In essence the bill is to implement a number of provisions granting additional rights to authors and holders of neighboring rights such as artists and phonogram producers. In Mexico there is clearly a private copy exception allowing people to make one copy of any work for private purposes without having to compensate the copyright holder.MEXICO: AMENDMENTS TO COPYRIGHT ACT Computer Law Review International CRi. the Copyright Act does not recognize "contributory infringement" as a possible means of liability. as it would be the manufacturers and vendors of equipment and media for reproducing copyrightable subject matter. against the Federal Constitution and the rule of law. Mexico has adjusted the Copyright law enhancing the protection of Technological Protection Measures and Digital Rights
240
. Private Copying Similarly. Issue 5. Consequently. The new wording of the provisions would imply that authors and artists are able to get compensated for the public communication that users make of the works. the Mexican Congress debated a bill proposing certain amendments to the Copyright Act 1996. Likewise. Under said statute. 15 October 2003. who would have to bear the obligation to cover the compensation. the Copyright Act would be changed to reflect a compensation right for private copying. 2. to extend property rights to situations where ownership no longer exists. Finally. it would be viewed as unfair forcing them to pay compensations for the reproduction equipment and media they use for making such a copy. Royalties for Secondary Use The amendment concerns two provisions and regulates expressly that authors and artists are entitled to seek royalties from secondary uses of copyrighted works. The proposal as dropped in the end as levies are totally incompatible with Mexican copyright law and legal system.

Older statutes like the Copyright Law of 1956 followed a similar system. with the exception of works of applied arts.Management in a digital environment. a strong resistance was started at the President's office with the intention that the promulgation and publication of the bill is stopped and that. The question has thus arisen why to implement a private copy levy system if there is the trend to adopt technology protection type models. notwithstanding his resistance to
241
. The amendment was strongly supported by authors and collecting societies but has been rejected by the industry and by society at large. For all the foregoing reasons the private copy amendment of the law was not accepted. 3. Droit de Suite The reform contemplates a "droit de suite" aimed at protecting authors of works of fine arts as well as creations of similar nature. And once the term expires. A system would be established including procedures to fix compensations. instead. which are no Ionger protected. the outcome did not please many sectors of society and as a result. but for society in general. However. The bill would also suggest a provision on restoration of works that fell into the public domain for lack of compliance with formalities in conformance with the Civil Codes of 1884 and 1932. However. not only in terms of what it would mean for the users of works. the President exercises his power of veto. 4. whether online or offline. the Government would have the power to collect fees from the use of works. The challenge for the legislator was thus manifest. Many would have hoped that Congress fully meditated on the implications of the amendment. even though Congress passed the bill with the exception of the private copy provision. abolished during the 1980s as being unfair and inapplicable. transmitting rights "mortis causa" and imposing obligations upon brokers and art galleries to inform authors or their representatives about any sales made of works of their authorship so that they get the right compensation. Patrimonial Right Term One change that has also become the subject of discussion is the increase of the patrimonial right term of life plus 75 years to life plus 100 years.

promulgate the bill.
242
. the President finally signed it into law and published it so that the amendment became effective on 24 July 2003.

who can only become "secondary" or "derivative" owners. as they cannot be disponed of by any means. the law would not find a real difference between an assignment of rights and a licence. transfers. Moral rights are not the subjects of transfers.COPYRIGHT CONTRACTING DEVELOPMENTS IN MEXICO Managing Intellectual Property. including the current
243
. or through licences . whether of personal or patrimonial nature. including that the rights granted can be reversed. with certain exceptions.the author or the artist . could be made through either assignment. And being the first owner of the rights. can take advantage of that to the detriment of the former. Transfer of patrimonial rights can be viewed in Mexico as a premier form of copyright contracting. After the law was changed in 1996 to make it compatible with NAFTA. having a stronger economic capacity. the system has recognized the author as the original owner of copyrights. but generally have been formed as ways of protecting the rights of someone .responding to a partial or limited transmission of rights. where the author would keep control over the use or exploitation of the work made by the licensee. That system has matured from the lesserdeveloped notions of earlier copyright statutes and civil codes. to the newer rules of the law of 1996. which is the statute that is currently in force. Under the copyright laws in effect in Mexico. Formerly. and subject to the limitations in the law. July/August 2003
In principle. Mexican copyright and neighbouring rights laws have been supported by different arguments. in keeping with the French approach.who is the weaker part in a relationship where the user. The legal treatment of book publishing agreements is a good example of that. which implies a full transfer of the copyright rights having been assigned expressly. the laws and doctrine would refer to "concessions" as an equivalent word for transfers and. as the law has called them. except for certain aspects. the author has control over the transfer of patrimonial rights to third parties.

recognizing new forms of individual contracting under a specified purpose.
244
. Transfer of rights As regards to the transfers of patrimonial rights.Act of 1996. b) It must set forth. On the one hand. the Copyright Law of 1996 establishes that the holder thereof can freely assign them to third parties. it enhances the principles of NAFTA. especially belonging to the authors' rights system. Certain very important restrictions were imposed however. without transferring rights of any sort. to protect authors by adopting more and more provisions dealing with individual contracts that would not only deal with book publishing. The 1996 Copyright Law is a legislative piece that is hard to define. in favour of the author. a work of her creation to the publisher for reproduction of samples and its public distribution. it has made clear that Mexico still follows the trend. On the other hand. However. calling for modernity in a business. a proportional participation in the income obtained from the use in question or a fixed remuneration. stage performance.oriented fashion. while the Mexican government did implement these provisions into the 1996 Law. it also kept the old system by imposing the ad hoc limitation on book publishing agreements as referred above. undergone by a number of countries. agreements of this kind would require that the author "delivers". which can be synthesized as follows: a) The assignment has to be made in writing. and audiovisual production. Article 1705 (3)(a) and (b) make it clear that copyright rights can be transferred by virtue of contracts and that the transferee shall be able to "exercise the rights in its own name and enjoy fully the benefits derived from those rights". broadcasting of radio and TV programmes. NAFTA and the Copyright Law of 1996 NAFTA was supposed to facilitate that copyright contracting would be reduced to the transfer of rights by either assignment or licence. including music publishing. An entire classification system has evolved as a result.

licences can essentially be granted for the reproduction or distribution of works according to the particulars of each genre. such as musical works (including mechanical and synchronization rights). what is clear is that the licensee will be entitled to the exercise of all rights obtained from the copyright holder. And generally a licence would be restricted by temporality. up to the extent that the agreement has disposed. As for the latter. d) Assignments are specific to the rights that are transferred. f) Future works cannot be assigned globally and instead they will have to be defined and specified before they can be the subject of an agreement. software. Contractual provisions on protection terms cannot exceed 15 years.c) In the absence of express provisions. at the discretion of the competent authorities. For example. video production). However. licences should not be required to fulfil the consideration and temporality restrictions. any assignment of property rights is considered to have a term of five years. The Law of 1996 also refers to licences by providing that: a) It will have to expressly indicate when granted on an exclusive basis. c) The licence has to be made In writing. and will be possible only when the magnitude of the investment required for the exploitation of the work justifies it. it does not state anything that licences are restricted to the same limitatlons that assignments are subject to. Similarly. In line with this. The reason is that. from its literal interpretation. and by the same token recordal would also not be needed. public performance rights and so forth. territoriality and grant of rights. reproduction rights. the word "transfer" appears to be narrow in scope and equivalent to assignments. e) Recordal of assignment is needed. The law does not make it clear that a licence needs to be recorded.
245
. just to mention the most common. and audiovisual works (that is. b) Licensee in an exclusive licence will bear the obligation to facilitate all media required for the exploitation of the authored work.

licences can be granted in connection with any form of public performance and transmission possible. Accordingly. and to that end a system of tariffs would apply. This would not apply to works under employment as the Copyright Law imposes an obligation on the employer to state. This means that the commissioner or employer becomes the owner of patrimonial rights ab initio and without the need of a transfer. the rights shall be shared by the parties. whether voluntary or compulsory. with the exception of a translation licence in terms of the Berne Convention and of NAFTA. The statute contemplates that holders of authors' and neighbouring rights shall not be able to oppose the public communication of phonograms as long as they get compensated. Because of the free use system. work for hire performs as an exception to the principle that patrimonial rights are initially vested upon the author. The Copyright Law makes a reference to collective licensing. artists or other
246
. In the absence of a clause in the labour agreement referring to this fact. work for hire can trigger from a contractual relationship or by the mere application of the law. whether analogue or digital. including wire or wireless reception. under employment or as a freelancer. can be regarded as the "original" owner of the rights. whoever commissions the creation of a work or a part thereof from an author. Under the Copyright Law. that the employee will perform as an author and the rights on the creations obtained will belong to the former. and if there is no labour agreement. the Copyright Law appears to be in favour of a "free use" system. as it would be exercised by collecting societies of authors. Accordingly. the possibilities of compulsory licensing under the Copyright Law is practically non-existent.Likewise. inspired by European theories. transmission or retransmission. Notwithstanding the above. just as long as an order to produce the work and a consideration can be proven. In the case of freelance works. it shall be the employee who owns the rights. small and grand rights can be the subject of licensing as well as rights deriving from the public communication of works by live or mechanical means or by processes of projection or by diffusion. placed outside the traditional notions of licensing. in the employment agreement. Other contracting forms A less typical form of contracting is work for hire. and recompenses the author for the contribution.

apparently inspired on the CISAC (International Confederation of Authors and Composers Societies) model contract. only legal entities that have been set up and authorized in compliance with the Copyright Law will be permitted to operate as a collecting society on behalf of their members. Among others. in virtue of a so-called "reciprocity agreement''. It may be sometimes easier indeed to use the blanket form. to rely on a blanket licence entered in bulk or a specified licence made for particular purposes. As mentioned. Collecting societies have the legal power to manage the rights relating to mass use of works. However. It is certainly possible. as otherwise the management of the rights could become much harder and impractical. Foreign collective societies or their members cannot perform their rights in Mexico directly. Once incorporated and approved.
247
. they need to show their membership and the express mandate conferred upon the collecting society in terms of the civil law to represent them in the administration of rights. under the law. collecting societies can request users of works to enter into licences for the use of the works of their members. By contrast. whether by virtue of a collecting society or by herself or an individual representative. One point that is sensitive would concern foreign collective administration of rights. foreign licensors cannot perform as a collecting society and grant licences directly. They would be required to do it through an equivalent Mexican collecting society. and for that end they have to comply with an array of legal obligations. Collecting societies require a government authorization to incorporate and perform in Mexico. such as compensation or others.titleholders. as referred by the law. the law has merely thrown in that concept without defining it or in general without making any particular specification or reference. An author or artist would always be free to choose how their rights would be collected. The administration of rights is principally made through the collection and distribution of royalties and other forms of income deriving from the use of works. which cannot be negotiated on an individual basis due to the fact that it is possible the work will be used by a great number of people at the same time and at different places.

Accordingly, it would be hard to know what that really means and what the legal requirements would be for them to acquire validity and enforceability. There is trouble and confusion as to what the Mexican partner of the foreign licensors should comply with in order to collect from the users of works. The Copyright Office has not taken the issue seriously enough and has proceeded to record reciprocity agreements without requirinq the foreign party to show it has been incorporated, in accordance with the laws of a foreign country, to perform as a collecting society and having obtained representation from their members.

248

ARTIST, AUTHORS TAKE ON INDUSTRY IP World on line, Copyright World, April 2003 The Mexican Congress is discussing a bill that proposes certain amendments to the Copyright Law of 1996. In essence, what the bill proposes is the implementation of a number of provisions granting additional rights to authors and holders of neighboring rights such as artists and phonogram producers. Thus, among other aspects, the Copyright Law would be changed to reflect a compensation right for private copying of works of authorship. The electronics industry has strongly opposed to the measure, as it would be the manufacturers and vendors of equipment and media for reproducing copyrightable subject matter, who wouId bear the obligation to cover the compensation. The reform contemplates a "droit de suite" aimed at protecting authors of works of fine arts as well as creations of similar nature, with the exception of works of applied arts. A system would be established including procedures to fix compensations, transmitting rights “mortis causa" and imposing obligations upon brokers and art galleries to inform authors or their representatives about any sales made of works of their authorship so that they get the right compensation. One change that has also become the subject of discussion is the increase of the patrimonial right term of life plus 75 years to life plus 100 years. And once the term expires, the Government would have the power to collect fees from the use of works, which are no longer protected. Older statutes like the Copyright Law of 1956 followed a similar system, abolished during the 1980s as being unfair and inapplicable. The bill would also suggest a provision on restoration of works that fell into the public domain for lack of compliance with formalities in conformance with the Civil Codes of 1884 and 1932. The amendment has been strongly supported by authors and coIlecting societies but has been rejected by the industry. Many would hope that Congress fully meditates on the implications of the amendment, not only in terms of what it would mean for the users of works, but for society in general. The challenge for legislators is thus manifest. It will be interesting to see what happens in the end.

249

OWNERSHIP OF RIGHTS IN MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW Copyright World, August 2001.

Principles of Mexican Copyright Law Mexican Copyright Law has been framed over the concept of author's rights. This is due to the fact that it has followed the principles developed earlier in continental European countries, such as France and Spain.1 A copyright system developed from the idea that the author and his or her creation are the central object of protection. And for 'Author' it would be understood the flesh and blood person or individual having created a work-of- authorship'.2 This notion is fully consistent with the principle of moral rights, which plays a crucial role in the system of author's rights, as they can only be vested in a natural person or individual'.3 Copyright Law has constantly been challenged by the developments of new technologies, which have triggered different forms of reproducing, communicating and in general, using material that is copyrightable. The foregoing has forced copyright systems world wide to evolve by improving existing forms of protection. The author's rights system, and in particular Mexican system, have made all efforts not to fall behind and at the same time remain loyal to its roots and principles. Derivative Ownership of Copyright Rights Mexican Copyright Law has viewed the author as the 'original' owner of copyrights'.4 Accordingly, rights whether moral or patrimonial, are vested in the author at first. Authors are legally entitled to make transfer of patrimonial rights to third parties, who will then come the owners of said rights.'5 These latter are 'secondary' or 'derivative' owners of rights or 'causahabientes' as known in Spanish. The difference between 'original' and 'secondary' or 'derivative' serves the purpose of making clear that there can be owners that acquire the title by having created the work and others by virtue of a transfer or assignment of the 'original' rights. The concept of transfer has matured from the lesser-developed notions of earlier copyright statues and civil codes, to the newer and more
250

modern rules of the law of 1996. However, there has always been the right of transfer in the different Copyright Laws in Mexico. In general terms, transfers can be made through either assignment which implies a full transfer of the copyright rights having been assigned expressly, and subject to the imitations in the law - or licenses responding to a partial or limited transmission of rights, where the author would keep control over the use or exploitation of the work made by the licensee. In accordance with the Mexican system of Copyright Law corporations can definitively be owners of copyrights. They are not really 'original' owners excepting as for works made-forhire. However, the different Copyright Laws of Mexico have allowed them to own 'secondary' rights as assignees or licensees. This is something that has prevailed for over hundred years and that can be observed, in practice, in many registrations where works are registered in the name of the author and the corresponding rights then assigned to third parties, whose names are recorded as assignees. Copyright Law Before 1948 As mentioned above, the criterion of ownership is probably as old as the Mexican copyright system itself. It was used for the first time in a decree of the Mexican Government going back to the mid 19th Century. And the concept was not only employed in connection with the transfer of rights mortis causa, but also in cases when the author would dispose of his rights during his lifetime. Accordingly, the first statute referring to assignments or in general to copyright pertaining to someone different than the author, is the Government Decree on Literary Property of December 3, 1846,6 which had the following set of rules: • Article 4. The simple editor of a work shall have the literary property therein only for the time it takes for the work to be published and for one additional year. This right shall not be extended to publications made abroad.

251

• Article 12. Works published by corporations shall be of their property for ten years, once this period expires, anyone shall have the right to publish them. The provisions of the decree were improved in the Civil Codes of 1870, 1884 and 1928. Copyright protection rules were contemplated in the three Civil Codes until 1948, year when a special statute for copyrights was adopted. The Civil Codes contained the following: Civil Code of 1870.7 Article 1254. The author and his heirs have the right to transfer this property as any other, and the assignee shall acquire all of the author's rights subject to the stipulations made in the contract. Civil Code of 1884.8 Article 1139. This article is identical to the provision of the Civil Code of 1870. Civil Code of 1928.9 Article 1205. 1The author and his heirs have the right to transfer the rights conferred by the privilege. In 1939 the government published certain regulations applicable to the provisions of the Civil Code of 192810. Said regulations were intended to impose requirements for the registration of works-of-authorship. In addition, they dealt with the issues of assignments and ownership, the following being of special interest: Article 7. It will be also possible to grant the recognition of exclusive rights in favor of the assignees of such rights, in terms of and under the requirements set forth in the following articles, as long as they show the evidence of the assignment. It shall be prohibited that these rights and privileges are assigned in total.The author or translator shall keep always a share therein. Any agreement attempting against the foregoing shall be regarded as null. Article 8. Assignments of copyrights having been recognized already shall be registered as well subject to the showing of the respective registration certificate and the evidence of the assignment.
252

Once the recognition of the assignment has been made a margin annotation shall be made of the corresponding original document. The regulations of 1939 were in force during at least the effective life of the laws of 1948 and 1956 (including the major reform of 1963 of this latter), and in concrete, until the date of publication of the regulations of 1998 to the law of 199611. Accordingly, most of the provisions of the regulations of 1939, and in special those in articles 7 and 8, continued to apply while the 1948 and 1956 laws were in force. The foregoing represents that among others, assignments were subject to recordal with the Copyright Office, and this has been working in practice ever since. Copyright Law of 194812 This statute was the first of a special kind approved by Mexican Congress. It significantly improved former laws in many aspects, as it was made with the purpose of implementing the Washington Inter American Convention of the same year.13 A Commentator has stated that the Mexican Law of 1948, became at the time of publication the most advanced legal instrument dealing with Copyright Law in the American Continent.14 Among others, the law of 1948 defined the nature of publishing agreements by incorporating sui generis rules applicable to this type of contracts.15 It also set rules for collecting societies, which was made for the first time in Mexican Copyrights history.16 The rationale employed by Congress was that corporations had started to take control of the exploitation of rights in this country, a situation requiring a proper counter balance which Congress thought the new law would produce. The legislative history of the statute reads as follows in the pertinent portion: In the majority of cases the author does not use the work directly, and rather transfers it in different forms to corporations users of the right. Said corporations, having an economic power that is superior to that of the author, sometimes obtain disproportional benefits of the author's work. It therefore will be convenient regulating the publishing agreement and other forms of reproduction, so that without putting obstacles to the right to enter into contracts, the author bears minimum warranties, as it is the nullity of a contract, for those cases when the
253

future productions of the author are compromised integrally, and certain other warranties for when the agreement is silent in regard to important subjects, which the author is generally not in conditions to foresee.17 In line with the foregoing, under the law of 1948 authors had the alternative of assigning or 'disposing of' their copyright rights, as established in article 1st of the law, or granting a publication or reproduction right to a publisher by virtue of a publishing agreement as governed by the law. Articles 7 and 8 of the 1939 Regulations were applicable in cases where the author would have assigned his or her rights, and accordingly, the corresponding agreement had to be recorded and a so-called 'margin annotation had to be made at the register. From the foregoing, it is clear that before and under the 1948 law, third parties other than the authors could at least be the owners of patrimonial rights not in an 'original' but in 'secondary' or 'derivative' form, by virtue of a transfer of rights, or by virtue of a publishing or reproduction agreement. Accordingly, any authors who had sought for registration of the literary works that they wrote, were the 'original' owners therein, having had the choice to transfer their rights to a third party, including corporations. Law of 1996 The current law of 199618 in various of its provisions, states that author, as the individual having created a work-of authorship,19 is owner of the copyright rights in said work.20 Article 26 of the 1996 indeed states that the author is the 'original' holder of patrimonial rights, and his heirs or assignees, shall be regarded 'derivative' owners. The 1996 statute establishes as well that the holder of patrimonial rights is entitled to make assignments of said rights or grant licenses on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis.21 It also states that transmissions22 are onerous23 and temporary, have to be made in writing24 and the corresponding agreement recorded with the Copyright Office.25 One important point is that regarded in article 33 of the 1996 law, in which it is stated that:

254

Article 33. In the absence of express provisions, any transfer of patrimonial rights is considered to have a term of 5 years. Terms over 15 years may be agreed upon only when the nature of the work or the magnitude of the investment required justify it.26 From the above, it can be obtained that the law of 1996 became more restrictive than its predecessors. Different sectors of industry have strongly complained to that. Some of them have even filed constitutional actions, which are pending still, and which are aimed at destroying the validity of said provision. However, for the time being companies doing business in Mexico, need to ponder the limitation imposed by the law and seek the proper counseling so that the assignment agreements that they enter into with authors and copyright holders reflect in an adequate form, a balance between the rights of both parties in said agreements. Work-for-Hire The concept of work-for-hire was for the first time introduced into Mexican Copyright Law with the implementation of the law of 1956. Legally speaking, work-for-hire became an exception to the traditional view of the author as the 'original' owner of patrimonial rights. In keeping with this, whoever commissions the creation of a work or a part thereof to an author, under employment or as freelance, and makes a retribution to the author for his contribution, can be regarded as the 'original' owner of the rights.27 The meaning of this is that commissioner or employer become the owner of rights ab initio and without the need of a transfer. On the other hand, the author or 'intellectual creator' (in Spanish 'creador intelectual' or 'colaborador remunerado'), as the law and doctrine refers to the individual contributing to the creation of the work", is not entitled to any patrimonial rights, and shall keep the moral right of paternity29. As to the moral right of integrity, the newer statute of 1996 made clear that the author would not have control over the modifications of the work, which implicitly would represent that he surrenders his right 'to oppose' to modifications made by the person or entity having commissioned the work30. The foregoing does not mean that the moral right in itself would have been transferred to this latter party or that it may have the right to own it. If that happened, the 1996 law would have attempted against one of the most sacred principles of
255

the Mexican author's right system, which is that moral rights are not subject to transfer or assignment as they are personal rights. In conclusion, those commissioning works are not authors or cannot be called authors. Again, they will be 'original' owners of copyrights of patrimonial nature exclusively, this due to a fiction imposed by the law and limited to work-for-hire situations. Likewise, in a work-for-hire relationship, corporations and other parties commissioning works will not be called assignees and will not be owners of 'secondary' rights.
1. Obón León, Ramón. Los Derechos de Autor en México. Published by 1CISAC, Buenos Aires, Arg., 1974. 1Mr. Obón finds that due to the influence of Spanish law in Mexico, concretely the "Recopilación de Leyes de Indias" (Recompilation of Indian Laws), the laws and statues of said country would be applicable in Mexico in a supplemental form. During the colonial times there were no precedents in the field of Copyright Law, and there was indeed not a "Colonial" copyright statute, but should the need have arisen Spanish law (leyes del Toro or any other specific for copyrights) would have applied.Similar ideas as Obón can be found at Farell Cubillas Arsenio. El Sistema Mexicano de Derechos de Autor. Ignacio Vado Editor, Mexico, 1966. 2. There is a consensus among the doctrine in Mexico. Obón León speaks in favor of this statement in his book at pages 60 and subsequent, and Farell does the same at page 89 and subsequent. The author of this notes explains the notion of "author" in one of his articles: Schmidt, Luis C. Computer Software and the North American Free Trade Agreement: Will Mexican Law Represent a Trade Barrier? Idea, the Journal of Law and Technology, FPLC, Volume 34 —Number 1, 1993, opus cit at p. 40. 3. The readers may consult about Mexican Copyright Law and its principles in the many arrticles published in English language by the author. Concerning moral and patrimonial rights refer to the article cited above, Computer Software and the North American Free Trade Agreement ..., opus cit., at page 41. 4. The expression "original" owner has been used in Mexico by both, Obón and Farell. 10bón, opus cit at p. 61 and Farell, opus cit, at p. 91. In other countries pertaining to the author's rights system, commentators such as Satanowsky in Argentina, have also made use of the concept. Satanowsky, Isidro. Derecho Intelectual. Tomo I, Tipográfica Editora Argentina. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 1954. p. 91.Normally, the idea of "original" owners has been used to distinguish between the owners of "preexisting" and "derivative" works, but also has served the purpose to differentiate between authors who are first owners of rights and other entities —such as corporations- who acquire "secondary" or "derivative" rights. In Spanish they are called "causahabientes", which in English could be roughly translated as "assignees". Farell, opus cit. at 91 and Obón, opus cit. at 64. 256

5. The concept of assignment cannot only be found in statues after 1956 but in earlier as well. This will be discussed later in full detail. 6. Legislación Mexicana. Colección Completa de las Disposiciones Legislativas Expedidas desde la Independencia de la República. Manuel Duolán y José María Lozano. Tomo V. Pp. 227-228. Taken from Revista Mexicana del Derecho de Autor, Evolución Legislativa, Número Especial, SEP, México, 1991, p. 13. 7. Id. p. 17. 8. Id. p. 45. 9. Id. p. 73. 10. Regulations for the Recognition of Exclusive Rights of Authors, Translators or Editors, Published at Official Gazette of October 17, 1939. 11. Published at Official Gazette of May 22, 1998. 12. Promulgated on December 31, 1947. Published in Official Gazette of January 14, 1948. 13. Convención Interamericana sobre Derechos de Autor en Obras Literarias, Científicas y Artísticas, of Washington, D. C., published at the Official Gazette of October 24, 1947. 14. Obón León, opus cit., p. 40. 15. 1948 law. Art 37 et seq.. 16. 1948 law. Art 66 et seq. 17. Farell, opus cit, pp. 24-25. 18. Published at Federal Gazette of December 24, 1996 and in force since March 25, 1997. 19. 1996 Law, article 12. 20. 1996 Law, articles 4, 11, 18, 24, 25 and 26. 21. 1996 Law, Title III Transfer of Patrimonial Rights, Article 30. 22. It is not clear if for "transmissions" the law would understand the assignment of rights only or assignments and licenses. The 1996 law refers individually to assignments (articles 30 and subsequent) and licenses (article 35 and subsequent). The word "transfers" or "transmissions" should then be used as a common designation for both. It is thus misleading when article 30 refers to "transfers" as a synonym of assignments. 23. Article 21 of the 1996 states that transmission agreements shall prevent in favor of the holder a " proportional participation" in the income obtained from the exploitation of the work of a "fixed and determined" remunerations. 24. 1996 Law, article 30. 25. 1996 Law, article 32. 26. The regulations of the law of 1996 states some rules for when to consider that by the nature of the work or the magnitude of the investment as assignment can be made for a period longer than 15 years. Among others it considers that when investment is superior to what is normally invested in the market for the type of work, or when they require a period of publication or diffusion which is longer than normal. Additionally, it regards works used for multimedia productions. 27. Schmidt, Luis C. Authors Under Employment and Works Under Commission in Copyright Law. Professional Thesis, UNAM 1997. Conclusions published at Revista Mexicana del Derecho de Autor, Año 1, Número 3, Julio- Septiembre 1990, México, 1990, p. 63. 257

28. id p. 63 et seq. Copyright Law of 1956/1963 art 59 and of 1996, articles 83 (freelance) and 84 (under labor). There are differences between the treatment that articles 83 and 84 imprint upon the work-for-hire figure. While a freelance creator does not have any rights over the work made for-hire, and employee could share the ownership of rights, under certain circumstances expressly stated in article 84 of the 1996 law. 29. Articles 59 of 1956/1963 law and 83 and 84 of 1996. 30. This can be perceived in article 83 but not in article 84. Recent developments un Mexican Copyright Law. Copyright World, Issue Seventy, May 1997

258

COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR FOREIGN WORKS Managing Intellectual Property, May 1999. The following comments relate to the laws and rules in Mexico regarding copyright protection terms, in accordance with different laws in force in Mexico since 1947. The purpose of this note is to explain how they could have impacted on foreign works of authorship. The author chose the case of US works because of the question NAFTA has posed, and because extending it to other countries laws would have made this note very long. What the law says Work created in the US under the Copyright Law of 1948. Article 8 established a term of protection of patrimonial rights of life of author plus 20 years. Article 2 established that the protection given by the Law to Authors is granted by simple creation of the work without the need for prior deposit or registration of its title, except for the cases specially stated therein. Aliens domiciled in the Mexican Republic shall enjoy the same right as they are national authors; aliens not domiciled there must register their rights with the copyright department to obtain the benefits of protection this law grants, unless the agreements entered by Mexico and the governments of the countries of which aliens are nationals state otherwise. There was no treaty executed by Mexico and the United States of America granting the 1940 reciprocal benefits (absence of formalities as to registration). The Berne Convention provides such rights; however, the US did not sign it until 1989. The US ratified the Panamerican Convention of Buenos Aires of 1910, and so did Mexico apparently. However, the treaty did not provide an absence of formality provision. Thus, as the treaty of 1910 did not provide such rights, unregistered works created in the US would fall in the public domain, as there was nothing in the 1948 Copyright Law to the contrary. Work created in the US under the Copyright law of 1956 Article 2 established a term of protection of life of author plus 25 years. Article 25 established that protection given by the Law to authors is
259

granted by simple creation of the work without need for prior deposit or registration for its title, except for the cases in the subsequent article. Article 26 established that if the author of a work of authorship is not a national of a state with which Mexico has executed a copyright treaty or agreement that is in force, that work will have to be registered, for protection, with the Mexican Copyright Office. Accordingly, works of US nationals would have required registration for protection, as in 1948 no legal treaty was in force between Mexico and the US during the 1950s. If rights obtained while the 1948 Law was in force had no expired in 1956, when the Law of 1956 became effective, the protection term would have been extended from 20 to 25 years. Work created in the US under the Copyright Law of 1963 Article 23 originally established a general rule of life plus 50 years, which was amended in 1993, the term increasing to life plus 75 years. Article 8 established that works that are referenced in the preceding article shall be protected, regardless if registered or are not made known to the public, or they remain unpublished. The reciprocity rule was eliminated and the absence of formalities rule became fully applicable to works of US nationals, despite the fact that until at least 1989, the US did not reciprocate. The law that came into effect in 1963 could have offered a chance to the copyright owners whose works had fallen into public domain, to restore the corresponding rights, with the filing of a copyright application within a particular term. Transitional article 6 of the 1963 Law set the following: “Authors whose works have fallen into the public domain by reason of non-registration during the term established in the Civil Code for the District and Federal Territories, insofar as concerns general matters, and the entire Republic insofar as concerns Federal matters, can obtain the benefits of protection that this amendment grants, if they seek registration of their works with the General Direction of Authors Rights within a period of one year counted as of these amendments come into
260

force. This protection may be requested by the authors or their successors in title, and will not in any way affect any prior rights legally acquired by third parties. The successors or assignees of authors that are deceased, shall prove the fact of the death, and that it happened within a term of 30 years previous to the date that the present amendments became effective”. Extension of term went from 25 to 50 years in 1963, and in 1993 from 50 to 75 years. Work created in 1999 In accordance with the Copyright Law of 1997 any work created in the US by US nationals would be entitled to protection for the term of life plus 75 years, without the need to register. In a previous briefing we analyzed copyright terms under the copyright laws of 1947, 1956, 1963 and 1997. Particular emphasis was made to the registration of rights, a requirement abandoned in the Mexican law of 1947. It was also mentioned that a restoration provision required foreign authors not domiciled in Mexico to obtain registration of the work in the public domain within a one-year period. If that new formality was not met, restoration would not have produced effects and consequently the corresponding work would have remained in the public domain. In 1963, a similar restoration rule was adopted. Now the question has arisen of what would happen if a country adhered to the Union after 1963 without its national authors having obtained registrations as stated in the laws of 1947 or 1963. Article 18 of the Berne Convention grants a solution. WIPO has interpreted it as an obligation on countries to protect works retroactively when the author failed to register but otherwise the work would still be under the term of protection of the protecting country or the term in law of the country of origin of the author, whatever term is shorter as stated by the comparison of term rule. Accordingly, foreign works should enjoy full protection in Mexico in conformity with article 18 of the Berne Convention.

261

COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR FOREIGN WORKS II Managing Intellectual Property, July/August 1999. In a previous briefing we analyzed copyright terms under the copyright laws of 1947, 1956, 1963 and 1997. Particular emphasis was made to the registration of rights, a requirement abandoned in the Mexican Iaw of 1947. It was also mentioned that a restoration provision required foreign authors not domiciled in Mexico to obtain registration of the work in the public domain within a one-year period. If that new formality was not met, restoration would not have produced effects and consequently the corresponding work would have remained in the public domain. In 1963, a similar restoration rule was adopted. Now the question has arisen of what wouId happen if a country adhered to the Union after 1963 without its national authors having obtained registrations as stated in the laws of 1947 or 1963. Article 18 of the Berne Convention grants a solution. WIPO has interpreted it as an obligation on countries to protect works retroactively when the author failed to register but otherwise the work would still be under the term of protection of the protecting country or the term in law of the country of origin of the author, whatever term is shorter as stated by the comparison of term rule. Accordingly, foreign works should enjoy full protection in Mexico in conformity with article 18 of the Berne Convention.

Substantive Law Protection The Mexican Government, in compliance with NAFTA and TRIPs commitments, has enacted a new Federal Law of Author’s Right (hereinafter referred to as the Copyright Law). It was published in the Official Gazete of the Federation on December 24, 1996 and became effective on March 24 1997, to be administered by the National Institute of Author’s Right (in charge of applying the substantive portion of the law) and the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (in charge of applying certain enforcement aspects of the Law). In brief, the purpose of the Copyright Law is protecting and enforcing copyright and neighboring rights. As to copyright, the law reputes the author (the individual that creates the work of authorship), as the principal object of protection. However, anyone who commissions production of a particular work under a work-for-hire relationship may also be the original owner of the work by fulfilling certain formalities and conditions, such as having agreements executed with the contributing individuals, and expressly including a work-for-hire clause; otherwise, corporations devoted to production or exploitation of works of authorship may obtain the rights to use the work through temporary assignments or licences. On the other hand, artists, phonogram and videogram producers as well as broadcasting organizations are subject to the protection afforded by the Copyright Law by virtue of the neighbouring rights. The law makes protection available to literary and artistic works regardless of the medium of expression in which they are embodied. To that end, it provides a general chapter which reflects the fundamentals and principles of author’s right, including a regime on patrimonial and moral rights and the transmissions and licensing of patrimonial rights. In addition, the Copyright Law establishes chapters referring to special agreements such as the publishing of literary and musical works, public performance and representation, the production of audiovisual works, and the exploitation of works through publicity. Individual chapters also deal with the protection of works produced in

289

different media such as photographic, graphic, fine art, cinematographic and audiovisual works as well as computer software and databases. One of the most interesting aspects of the new law is precisely that related to software and database protection. Mexico first recognized software as copyrightable subject matter in 1984. However, the Copyright Law of 1956 was only amended in 1991 when software was added as a separate and independent category of copyrightable work. The law as amended in 1991 also imposed restrictions on backup copying and provided criminal penalties for unauthorized reproduction of software for the purpose of gain. On the substantive side, the highlights of the new law on software are as follows: a) Software will now be protected as literary works in terms of NAFTA; b) Protection will be extended organization of the program; to the sequence, structure and

c) The producer shall be considered as the owner of the rights ab-initio. d) These rights shall comprise: distributions, and transmission of the work, rental rights unless the copy of the computer software is not itself an essential object of the rental; and right to prevent decompilation, reverse engineering and dissemblance of the program. e) The back-up copy provision was improved. The protection of databases will be afforded as a compilation of the above when these rights are obtained as a result of the selection and arrangement of its contents. The rights conferred to the rightsholder will be to authorize or prohibit the reproduction of the database, and its translation, adaptation, restructuring and any other modification of the database, the distribution of the original or copies of the database, and its public communication. Lastly, it bears mention that the Law provides protection to the data in the databases and the right of privacy of the persons whose names appear in the databases. The Copyright Law also makes express mention of multimedia works protection, and imposes a prohibition on import, manufacture, distribution and the use of equipment or services
290

used to eliminate technical protections found in computer programs, transmissions across the electromagnetic spectrum and telecommunications networks and electronic multimedia programs. Procedural Provisions and Enforcement Changes to the enforcement system in Mexican Copyright Law are substantial. Traditionally, the major problem with Mexican law has been precisely enforcement. A radical reform of enforcement procedures and remedies was needed if Mexico was to satisfy the enforcement standards set in NAFTA and TRIPs. It has been a complex process to accomplish this reform because in the past criminal penalties have been the basic means for enforcing copyrights. The 1956 Law devoted a whole chapter to criminal actions, providing a list of acts that were considered crimes. However, the standard for satisfying the criminal rule was high. In addition, the Copyright Law allowed an injured owner to recover damages after a court had finally determined that an infringer was liable for criminal penalties. As a minimum the 1956 Law stated that the court had to impose damages equal to forty percent of the total value of the infringing products. As to preliminary measures the 1956 Law and the Criminal Procedures Code authorized the Federal Attorney General’s Office to impose some provisional measures during the office’s preliminary inquiry of a case. These provisions allowed the Attorney General’s Office to seize and destroy infringing goods which under certain circumstances would require search and warrant orders from the Federal Courts. The civil system, however, was considered to be less prepared to be the recipient of the proposed changes. Enforcing copyright through civil law would have required the reform not only of the Copyright Law, but also of other statutes such as the Civil Procedural Code. Under the 1956 Law civil actions are basically available only against infringement arising from the public performance of works. Civil actions cannot be used to stop unauthorized reproduction of a work. Moreover, the standard for proving damages in civil actions is quite difficult to satisfy and alternative remedies, such as punitive or statutory damages, are unavailable. Furthermore, Mexican Law provides only provisional
291

to base copyright enforcement on administrative actions. The Mexican Government has now proposed.remedies in civil cases. The most relevant provisions are quoted hereunder: I. was which authority to use for that end. V. and Congress has approved. distribute. these are generally broad and are difficult to enforce. sell. reproduce or exploit a protected RESERVA of Rights (certain protection afforded to characters.
292
. Publicly use or communicate a work protected by any means and in any form without the prior authorization of the author. manufacture. Other infractions of the provisions of this Law that involve conduct on a commercial or industrial scale related to works protected by this Law. IV. however. the Mexican Industrial Property Institute (IMPI) has proved to be effective in the application of enforcement of industrial property rights. modified or mutilated without authorization of the rightsholder. Due to the foregoing the IMPI was granted the authority to enforce the patrimonial aspect of the Copyright Law. Import. Offer for sale. II. Use. transport or put in circulation works protected by this Law that have been deformed. or his/her lawful heirs. was empowered with the application of the moral right portion of the Law. Produce. The Copyright Office itself. III. The Copyright Office has traditionally represented a registration authority without the powers to prevent infringement. transport or commercialise illegal copies of works protected by this Law. The problem. On the other hand. or a computer program without the consent of the rightsholder. stock. VI. among others). stock. will constitute commercial infractions. however. “Infractions in commerce” when undertaken with direct or indirect gainful intent. rent or undertake any act that permits possession of equipment or system the goal of which is to deactivate electronic protections found in a computer program. or of the economic rightsholder. titles of publications. The new Law has named the related provisions “Infractions in commerce”.

distributes or rents works protected by the Copyright Law with willful intent. US $15. 1996. IMPI can also suspend free circulation of imported goods at the border.000) in all relevant cases. Finally. which shall be 500 to 1000 days.000 days of minimum daily salary (approx. above. IMPI can apply an additional fine up to 500 days of minimum daily salary per day (up to $1500 per day).000 to 10. Exploitation of works on a commercial scale can increase the fines by 50 percent. sells. The procedures and provisional injunctions set forth in the Industrial Property Law shall be applicable to the commercial copyright infractions. except those in X.000 to US$30. copyright crimes have been reduced and moved from the former Copyright Law to the Penal Code. imports.The Copyright Law states that these commercial infractions will be sanctioned by IMPI with 5.
293
. stocks. on a commercial scale and without authorization of the rightsholder” Transitional Articles The most important transitional article states that the Copyright Law shall enter into force ninety days after the date of its publication. makes. transports. The basic provision was left as follows: “Imprisonment from 6 months to 6 years and 300 to 3000 days of penalty to be paid (about US$9000) for whoever produces. For those who persist in a violation. which was December 24.

We believe the reason is two fold: a) An understanding of software and a culture based on its protection has only recently developed in this country. in Mexico. a shrink-wrap licence is considered to be a kind of adhesion contract with many unique features. As its name indicates. However. The General Attorney's Office and Criminal Courts have accepted such type of agreements in several piracy cases that have been filed before them. box-top. Discussion will be centered on the specific issues of enforceability. In Mexico. in Mexico as in other parts of the world. distribution and use of copies of programs. the principal clauses of the agreement relate to limitations placed on the user's ability to decompile. March 1996. disassemble and copy the program. b) Additionally. As mentioned. have become valuable instruments for retaining control over the reproduction. the popularity among Mexican and foreign publishers of shrink-wrap and similar types of licence has grown. of shrink-wrap.COPYRIGHT AND SHRINK WRAP LICENCES IN MEXICO Copyright World. the issue of their enforceability has never been brought to the attention of the courts. legal community and judges of the existing rights of software publishers and similarly little knowledge of the rights of the users of computer programs. shrink-wrap licences have been basically thought of as supporting copyright ownership of computer programs. The notion is that the user has accepted the licence's terms and conditions if he or she opens the wrapper. They also represent the tools by which software publishers avoid decompilation and disassemblance of their programs by licensing them to customers under an obligation of confidence or non-disclosure. there is little knowledge among the public. For some years. the licences have represented an acceptable medium for distinguishing between copies and clones. the licence is wrapped or packaged in the box also used as the container for the copy of the computer program. and finally a mechanism for imposing limitations and waiver of Warranties. and tear-open licences that come with computer software copies and packages directed for mass distribution and consumption. In this regard. Mexican Copyright Law grants an
294
. These.

such use could be prevented. Shrink-wrap licences have never been tested before with regard to decompilation. the question arises as to whether shrink-wrap licences are subject to formalities. any person engaging in such activities would be taking the idea of the program.
295
. as it ispossible to impose copying limitations in line with the Law itself.Under the foregoing the shrink-wrap agreement sustaining such a limitation could be considered illegal and unenforceable. shrink-wrap licences have been viewed by said authorities as an acceptable form for recognising copyrights. In the case of decompilation or disassemblance. and the Copyright Law would probably not serve as an appropriate legal instrument for prevention. if from the underlying idea the person obtains an identical program or something substantially similar and then reproduces or uses it.exclusive right for preventing anybody from reproducing or using a computer program without previous authorisation. if it is taken into account that reverse engineering and independent development constitute proper means for obtaining ideas that have remained secret and legally protected as a result. Accordingly. if the purchaser of the copy is able to look at the agreement only after paying for the package. disassemblance and warranty limitations. A further question arises as to whether the agreement between the owner and the user should be considered a sale or a licence and whether it can be considered a legally binding and hence enforceable agreement. having stemmed from the access to the underlying program. With regard to the first question it is hard to tell whether shrink-wrap licences can function as a measure for imposing limitations on decompilation and disassemblance and even more so with respect to warranties. Mexican copyright Law protects the expression of a particular idea. However. especially given the difficulties in having a formal licensing agreement signed by the parties. We believe that these would represent real issues under Mexican Law and the question has arisen whether shrink-wrap licences could be used for limiting such type of rights. Trade secret protection may also not be the appropriate means for solving the problem. but not the idea itself. Finally. especially where the particular limitation may contravene the provisions of the Law.

However. it is likely that the corresponding shrink-wrap provision would be found illegal. Although the system followed by the Mexican Commerce Code does not necessarily require that the offeror actually receives the response given by the offeree. Finally. the Mexican Copyright Law provides that those agreements entered into by authors modifying. If this is not met. If the operation is made via telegram. So far. it has to be borne in mind that under Mexican Law the Buyer would only be paying for the copy of the program that is being bought and that thecorresponding copyrights remain with the software publisher unless expressly transferred. it would have to be previously agreed so in writing by the contracting parties.Warranties could only be waived if permitted by the Law and if no express or implied obligation has been imposed on the contracting party to provide a specific warranty. accepting the entire terms of the offer. The buyer of the copy may believe that he or she is paying for a purchase and then discover that the shrink-wrap pretends to modify the original deal by imposing limitations and considering the agreement a licence instead of a sale. if this authority considers this necessary. telex or facsimile. Mexican Law would surely regard shrinkwrap licences as adhesion contracts that could be subject to recordal and scrutiny by the Consumer Protection Office. transmitting. encumbering or extinguishing patrimonial copyrights shall take effect after they are
296
. is hard to answer. We thus believe that a copyright licence is implied allowing the buyer of the copy to use the program with all restrictions imposed by the Law. With respect to formalities. Regarding the type of agreement issue. The above rules are difficult to apply in shrink-wrap situations. it could be possible to see the courts arriving at the conclusion that shrink-wrap conditions were never accepted by thebuyer. The question whether shrink-wrap licenses constitute a binding agreement under Mexican contract law and if they represent licenses or sales. the Consumer Protection Office has never manifested an intent to exercise such authority. The Mexican Commerce Code establishes that agreements between absent parties shall be binding whenever an offer is answered by offeree. this provision may not support shrink-wrap licences.

297
. However.recorded with the Copyright Office. Should this requirement arise at all. This would meet the standards required by law and avoid the impossible situation of recording on a multiple user basis. copyright licences in general and shrink-wrap agreements in particular should not be considered as falling into any of those categories. modification or extinction of copyrights have to be recorded. Recording formalities should not be mandatory for agreements entered into by a publisher and an end user of computer programs. it should be restricted to a single recordal for one particular form of agreement. it remains to be seen if this view would be shared by the Copyright Office and eventually the Courts. It should be understood that only agreements representing transfer. We have so far no notice of any shrink-wrap agreement having been recorded with the Copyright Office.

The flesh and blood person called the "author" — or "authors" in case of collective works — is the main object of protection.MEXICAN COPYRIGHT REVIEWED Copyright Yearbook 1994.
323
. In keeping with this. strongly encourages protection of the author's personality. Mexico. a situation which is reflected in the concrete application of such basic copyright principles as originality. Since Mexico's independence. unitary and representing or meaning something. Likewise. Comments in respect to the Mexican copyright regime will be made below. like most other countries with legal systems derived from Roman Law. which is still in effect. the expression/idea dichotomy and fair use. various copyright laws have been enacted. However. Mexican Copyright Law requires that the work be embodied in a tangible medium of expression. it will be always the intangible element — human creation — that will be protected and not the medium or corpus mechanicum in which is embodied. Mexican Copyright Law evolved from the civil law system adopted by the country as a consequence of the 16th Century Spanish Conquest. talent and ingenuity. will be granted full protection under Mexican copyright law. that is. It is indeed the act of creation and fixation of the author's creation in a material and durable form that leads to copyright protection. the most recent being the Federal Copyright Law of 1963.
Mexico has evolved a dynamic modern set of copyright rules. The Work of Authorship A work is the personal intellectual creation or expression of human sensibility. The Author Mexican Copyright Law is definitively oriented toward author's rights. an individual creation which is complete. A creation meeting the above criteria.

they cannot be pledged and they may never be signed away. Patrimonial rights. In this respect. They cannot be transferred. may be transferred.The Rights Mexican copyright law states that there are two fundamental types of rights. of which Mexican law has indirectly recognized some. or by the assignee or copyright owner in case of a work for hire relationship. shares and payments for the rendering of services other than employment. The meaning of remuneration is broad and comprises salaries. under a pseudonym or anonymously.
324
. their duration is temporary. licensed or in any other way disposed of by the author. There are no court decisions that have limited this criterion. According to Mexican Copyright doctrine. Article 59 of the Copyright Law establishes that everyone who produces a work with special and remunerated participation or collaboration of one or more persons shall enjoy ab initio the copyright in it. Nor is it possible for the author to renounce his or her moral rights. The individual author of a work is owner of the copyright on what he or she creates. moral rights constitute the dividing line between intellectual property rights and actual property. patrimonial rights contemplated by Mexican law can be divided into the five well-known categories of reproduction. sold or assigned because they are inherent to and integral to the author. the right to keep the work unpublished. There are various categories of moral right. in contrast with moral rights. public performance and display. Just as in other jurisdictions. the right to continue and complete one's own work. who holds them permanently and perpetually. However only the paternity right and the integrity right have been expressly provided for. during and after his or her life. These include the right to create. control of derivative works. the right to modify and destroy it. unless there is a work made for hire relationship. moral and patrimonial rights. the right to select interpreters for the work's performance and right to withdraw it from commerce. Moral rights are the purest manifestation of the author's personality in copyright. distribution. the right to publish it under the author's name.

the Interamerican Convention confers protection to member State authors and foreigners domiciled in member states. in case of a dispute over rights. in the case of enforcement. encumbering or extinguishing patrimonial copyrights shall produce effects after they are recorded with the Copyright Office. Therefore. Mexican Copyright Law states that if proper notice is not displayed in a visible place. the publisher will be liable for sanctions prescribed by the law — but this will not result in loss of copyright. Notwithstanding the foregoing. so registration only recognizes or confirms the existence of previously constituted rights. registration represents prima facie evidence of copyright ownership. a Mexican court would most likely recognize application of the principle of absence of formalities to all foreign works whose authors are nationals of Berne Convention or Interamerican Convention countries. if their works have been published in one country of the Union or if they have permanent residence in one of them. Similarly. Thus. It should be understood that only agreements representing transfer. deposit or formalities. the law provides that those entered into by authors and users modifying. which states that there is no need to register a work in order to protect it. By application of the Berne Convention. the principle of absence of formalities extends to foreign authors who are nationals of Union countries or. Berne Convention standards were introduced into Article 8 of the 1963 Copyright Law. protection of a work arises out of the very act of creation. the burden of proof would be borne by the contesting party. Accordingly.
325
. As mentioned before. However. but not to nationals of countries with which Mexico has only Universal Copyright Convention relationships or no reciprocity relationships at all. The principle of absence of formalities also covers the copyright notice requirements. without registration. modification or extinction of copyrights have to be recorded and work for-hire agreements do not fall within any of the cited categories. if not nationals of Union countries.Formalities Mexican Copyright Law subscribes to the principle of absence of formalities as to registration and use of copyright notice of the Interamerican and Berne Conventions. transmitting. Regarding recordal of agreements.

Also recordal is probably not mandatory for agreements entered into by two publishers or other corporations with no participation of the authors.
326
. the intention of the contracting parties governs copyright relationships between authors and publishers. Otherwise. there are no restrictions imposed by the law to scrutinize and approve recordal of agreements.

Rights of economic nature are exclusive (and some times nonexclusive/remunerative). works are those classified as “classical arts” Software. • A “final user” “uses” software works and “end uses” software products at the same time. databases and videogames also have been recognized as works • Despite the fact that they “serve” because they are “useful” or “functional”. • However. The concept of software work is narrow as it restricts to the literal features of a computer program • Principally codes written under a program language. communicate to public and transform works. etc.COPYRIGHT: USE OF WORKS IN MEDIA Webinar. collecting or playing. but only “using” works (copyright. 2012. “service” or “function” of software is beyond the reach of copyright law.
348
. The question for copyright law is how to protect (if at all possible) nonliteral aspects of software • Copyright law cannot be stretched or pressed into “service” to protect “functional” elements of software dealing with its capacity to be “end used” (writing. limited protection times. Copyright principles are “originality”. In particular.
In principle. “idea/expression dichotomy”. as well as giving access to public for distribution or public communication. absence of formalities. right to copy. • Considering that “end use”. “functional” means that software works “can do” things like writing. • Traditional principles of copyright law apply naturally to software works despite the “functional” aspects. • The foregoing in addition to or in lieu of the “non-functional” capacity of reading. calculating. viewing or listening works. August 29. since they do not serve a “useful” purpose and are devoted for being read. collecting or playing). The concept of software works has been developed under that idea. viewed or listened.) has a copyright connotation. Copyright law is legal “protection” afforded to “works” “used” in media • • • Authored works that are “non-functional”. distribute copies. • Code of software resembles literary works.Power Point presentation. calculating.

“distributed”. Copyright law should not expand to cover anything different than works as “used” in media • It should be distinguished between protecting software (and possibly other works) that provide “service” (and are hence “functional”) than protecting their “function” or the “service” they give. • Videogames has been a challenge. digital media are like any other medium. In general. digital media are like any other medium • Digital media are complex and “using” works in such media represents new challenges and issues. “transformed” or “accessed from digital networks”). However. in terms of what Copyright law targets. US Courts) have produced decisions addressing “look and feel” of software. • The medium determines the form how works are “used”. “communicated to the public”. • “Look and feel” may still be within the radar of copyright law. • Same as software. • Copyright law should not encroach into “functional” areas. copyright law should not offer protection of works in digital media. This is incompatible with its principles and structure “Use” of works that imply “functional” or similar qualities should be left for patents (in principle)
349
.Some courts (ie. in an effort to extend protection to the “function” of works. still good for copyright law Copyright law is result of an interrelation between work and medium • Works are “used” in media. • For example. • But in essence. • Digital media allow works being “used” (“copied”. • Viewing software is like other works that can be perceived by sight. • Copyright law has been ensambled considering the interrelation between work and medium. • Whatever reason pursued (commercial or non-commercial) by the “user” of the work. since they keep changing the pattern of the game as it is played. printing press and photocopier “copy” works or radio and television “braodcast” works.

If “gaps” are found that neither copyright nor patent law can fill.  SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT Copyright law is legal “protection” afforded to “original” “works” “used” in “media”. patent law has protected related inventions (software applied or used to perform “useful” activities). distributed in copies. • One protection at the same time and avoiding overlaps and double protection.
350
. patent law should always start where copyright law ends. Patent is not better protection than copyright. “Protection” means economic rights to “use” a work on an exclusive or non-exclusive basis.• • • • • •
Patent is better law than copyright to deal with “functionality” issues. “Use” signifies that the work is copied. • Redefine principles of copyright or patent law only if strictly needed. In case of software. communicated to the public or transformed.
Copyright does not represent the need to fulfill formalities. evaluation should be made wether ad hoc protection is required • As in software. • Drawing a dividing line is preferred and can be possible for software and digital media. Patent law should apply in connection with inventions involving “function” of software (or perhaps even other works) in digital media. Patent law has stayed short when dealing with “function” of software. Licensing of copyrights entails that the beneficiary thereof is entitled to use the work as if it was the copyright holder. not subject to formalities and limited in time. Copyright owners are entitled to use works without restriction imposed by claims or other legal rules. being careful that structures do not become altered or affected. The scope of a copyright work is determined by its nature. The same could happen in case of digital media. it is just different.

“Works” are “authored expressions” in “classical arts”. • The “final user” can “end use” software to benefit from “service” rendered (writing. • Copyright law prevents software works from being “used” (copied or disseminated). like “inventive step” or “industrial application”. • Works of drama. which a “final user” can read. “Originality” is the same thing as “subjective novelty”. but not software from being “end used” by an “end user” or “final user”. music. meaning that: • Software works are regarded as “authored expressions”. since they only pursue the objective that they are read. • Works are not “functional”. Every work requires a minimum of personal creative expression. • Independent creation brings the chance that an author creates a work that is identical to the work of another author. same as “classical arts”. • There are no additional requirements in Copyright law. Examples are: • Works of literature. copyright design excludes industrial designs. Legally speaking. However: • Most of the time. making public communication or transforming. that instruct computers to perform services. dance and theatrical. Copyright design is artwork made by artists in connection with some industry. Software. music. sounds or images. • They are “codes” expressed in writing –as it is literature–. fine arts or audiovisuals. viewed or listened. fine arts. distributing copies. databases and videogames (software works) are “functional” or “useful” works. calculating. it is hard to know when a design is applied art and when industrial design
351
. • The licensed user of software works is entitled to “use” the same by copying. and thereby “represent” or “are like” literature. • They consist of words. • Works of photography. Copyright design includes architecture and applied arts. view or listen. viewing or listening. audiovisual. • The fregoing in addition to or in lieu of “using” software works by reading. collecting or playing.

• The owner of the product or building “end uses” a designed product or building. printing press. digital media for copying. • Rather applies to “functional” industrial products or performs as pattern for making products or buildings. digital media) Works can be “used” according to the following activities: • Copying (ie. • Cannot be “end used” by a “final user”. The “medium” determines how “works” are “used” • Literary (ie. adaptation. collection. Works are “used” in “media”. radio or television broadcast.•
Drawing a line to divide has not been easy and is perhaps irrelevant in terms of deciding when copyright or industrial property protect
(Copyright) design: • Is not “functional” as such. uploading. printing press. abridgement. • Copyright law prevents copyright design being “used” (copied or disseminated). digital media) • Audiovisual productions (ie. recording by filming. • “Use” of a designed product or building by an “end user” signifies “service” by wearing it or living inside. public performance. public performance. digital media for copying or disseminating) • Fine arts (ie. “Used” in “Media”. public display. photocopier. recording. radio broadcast. whereas the “user” of a design “uses” the copyright design itself (it is different form of use). public display. television broadcast. sound recording. printing press. digital transmissions) • Transforming (ie. • “Using” a copyright design is the same as “using” any other work. printing press. photochopy. photocopier. rental or other forms of disposal) • Communication to the public (ie. translation) • Public access by digital networks (provide access to the users of digital networks services to distribute or communicate works to the public)
352
. theatrical exhibition. Only the industrial product or building resulting from the “design”. but not from being “end used” by an “end user” or “final user”. downloading or other forms of digital copying) • Distribution of copies (ie. digital media) • Software (ie. computer devices. or disseminating) • Music (ie. briefing. sale.

• The “user” of the patented invention can make and sell products. • Patent holders are entitled to use the patented invention so long it does not encroach on patents of others • Licensing of patent rights entails that the beneficiary thereof will not be the subject of infringement “Novel inventions” are principally products or methods that are “new”. • Software related inventions are subject-matter of patents. viewing or listening are not considered to be “functional” activities “Use” signifies that the patented invention (product or method) is made.SPIRIT OF PATENTS Patent law is legal “protection” afforded to “novel” “inventions” that are “used” in a given “industry” “Protection” means economic rights to exclude others from “using” a patented “invention”. subject to formalities and limited in time. Inventions need to be state of the art. • The scope of a patented invention is determined by its claims. One invention cannot be patented twice by different applicants • “Inventive step” is that the invention must not be obvious • “Industrial application” is that the invention is “functional” • Being “functional” is a principal characteristic of industrial products or methods • Products or methods need to be “reduced into practice”. • Patents represent the need of a formal grant. databases and videogames (software inventions) need to meet patentability standards • Software as such is excluded from patent application.
353
. show “inventive step” and have “industrial application” • “Novelty” is the same as objective novelty. they need to “service” the functions that they are made for • Reading. used or sold • “Made” by means of manufacture according to each particular industry • “Use” by being put into practice • “Sold” by any form of distribution • “End use” signifies that the invention serves in accordance with its “function” Software. It is regarded as “non-functional” from a patent stand point. Software applied or used to perform inventive activities.

• However. as in any patent. “function”. Protection does not extend to the “functional” part of a design (design that makes a product work). • “Using” an industrial design is quite similar as “using” a work. Why can’t industrial designs be copyrighted. Industrial design means: • That “end use” is made by the owner of the product as “final user”.•
The “final user” of the product made from the software patent is allowed to “end use” the same according to its function. “end using”. if: • Protection by patent law imitates copyright protection to the extent that novelty means originality • Copyright law has had no problem to protect works having “functional” capacities • It is clear the meanings of “using”. or selling
354
. but not “inventive step” • However. and “non-function”. copyright can protect design (or other) works against making. communication to public and transforming • On the other hand. distribution. the “novelty” bar has been lowered nearly to “originality”. Industrial design is: • Not “functional” as such • It is rather ornament of “functional” industrial products • For the purpose of industrial design law “functional” means that an industrial product can be “end used” by the “final user” as designed by the industrial designer • “End use” of a designed product by an “end user” is wearing or benefiting from the “service” that it renders It remains unclear whether industrial design law excludes form protection works of applied art • The law should exclude since applied art is works. The standard of protection is “novelty” and “industrial application”. Industrial design law protects “ornamental” “non-functional” designs of products. using. applied art meets the definition of industrial design. which is different from “using” the design.
Industrial design is a “sort” of “invention” made by designers in connection with some industry. and the difference of said terms • Patent law does not protect inventions against copying. “service”.

Industrial designs should be reputed copyrighted works • As in case of applied arts • As in case of fine arts • As in case of all other arts Patent law should really concentrate on the functional side of industrial designs (designs that make a product work) • By treating industrial designs as general inventions • And thus being able to examine industrial designs under the same factors and parameters of inventions
355
.

neither trade mark nor copyright laws have explored issues with reference to the name or likeness of people that would go beyond the limits dictated by the general principles of IP law. used as trade or service marks or other trade symbols.IMPROVED PROTECTION FOR PERSONALITIES By Luis C. improving the existing regime of the Federal Civil Code. trade mark and unfair competition laws have protected names and designs. The statute was entitled Law of Civil Liability for the Protection of the Right to Private Life. Beyond trade mark and copyright law By tradition. honour. that would shield persons’ physical likeness as captured in
356
. names and images have been an important subject matter of IP law. the Copyright Law stipulates a limited publicity right in article 87. honour and intimacy of persons. Honour and Image in the Federal District (the Privacy Law). image. On the other hand. triggered by illicit acts. In Mexico.
Effective from May 20 2006. generally called the “right of image”. Defendants that are responsible for moral damage are required to indemnify the plaintiffs in monetary terms. affecting the “sentiments. However. affections. In keeping with this. configuration. The rule states a remedy against the “moral damage” for the harm inflicted to persons. Schmidt and Abraham Díaz. including names of flesh and bone persons or their likenesses. reputation. the Federal District’s local congress (the Federal District of Mexico comprises part of Mexico City’s metropolitan area) passed legislation to protect the human personality and likeness. Article 1916 was conceived to foster values that are inherent to human personality and that cannot prescribe. Similarly. whether or not they have also been the subjects of objective liability. private life. October 2006. The purpose of the statute was to introduce a systematized set of norms addressing the name. contractual or extra-contractual. be renounced or placed in commerce. or physical aspects or the consideration that others have of that person”. Article 1916 of the Federal Civil Code protects the right of privacy. beliefs. décor. copyright law has protected titles of worksofauthorship and the names of persons authoring the works (the moral right of paternity). Managing Intellectual Property.

The right is patrimonial in nature and can be assigned to third parties or can generally be disposed of. The plaintiff claimed royalties for the public performance that the defendant was making of her fixed vocal “interpretations”. Juicio Ordinario Civil. the affection that people have for others. common people – not just celebrities – can oppose the publication of their portraits or their use in general. based on performing artist rights in the Copyright Law and the moral damage provision of the Civil Code. rights of privacy. Curiously. paintings or drawings). In Patricia Álvarez Solís v Radiomovil Dipsa. and 3) the plaintiff was unable to show that by using the recordings of her voice the defendant had perpetrated illicit acts and thus infringed her moral rights. the plaintiff argued that the defendant used her voice in an attempt to exploit the personal rights envisaged by the Civil Code. Secretaría “B”. Article 231 (II) of the Copyright Law provides an administrative cause of action against the non-authorized use of the “image” of a person and although the term was not defined. The Privacy Law searches for a balance between privacy and personality rights and freedom of speech. 4 and 8). In accordance with Article 87. thus producing a moral damage. 2) even assuming that the plaintiff was the performer of a work she would have acted under agreement and received full consideration for the services that she rendered. SA de CV Exp 642/99. a lady hired by the defendant to record four short phrases for use as instructions or commands in connection with mobile phones filed a civil damages action for $5 million. to the honour and the likeness of individuals – residing in the Federal District – and on the other hand. it appears that the law understands the meaning of the word “image” to mean “portrait”. Likewise. Juzgado 39 Civil.portraits (photographs. Courts have rendered some precedents regarding the “moral damage” remedy of the Civil Code as well as the “image” right of the Copyright Law. considering among other substantive factors that: 1) the phrases that the plaintiff had recorded were not a work-of-authorship in terms of the Copyright Law – they were rather functional language – and that she had not been an artist as a result. their affection for
357
. right to information and right to inform (Articles 1. Personality rights are the moral patrimony of persons including. on the one hand. The Court decided in favour of the defendent. the law does not define a term of protection and seems to be indefinite in time.

The notion of honour also includes the estimation or “estimable feelings” that individuals have of their own (Article 13). although they have been also recognized for corporations. to protect activities in a private environment and ensure that the person performing them does not disclose them. The law has defined it as the values that people have of other individuals. comprising their good reputation and fame.particular goods as well as the right to keep secret their private life (Article 3). papers. Third parties should not have access to people’s sphere of privacy and. in particular. in social-ethical terms. Likeness has been defined as the reproduction over a tangible medium of a person’s physical features that are identifiable (Article 16). if it was rendered for literary. domicile. Every person has rights over his/her own image and accordingly. Personality rights are recognized in favour of individuals principally. Private data is protected if published without consent or by illegal means in general (Articles 9 to 12). despite being hurting. Information shall not be disparaging. where applicable (Article 6). Unlike the Copyright Law. to their family. scientific or professional criticism or submitted in compliance of a duty or when enforcing a right. provided that it was not made for an offensive purpose. And by private life the law understands everything that is not destined for public activities and that has no direct impact on society. The Privacy Law provides a concept of honour that is very technical and that will be hard to be reduced in practice. Content of the Privacy Law The right of privacy is closely associated with the notion of private life. The foregoing prohibitions will encompass reproduction of a person’s likeness
358
. the law has included language against speech that is based on insulting or insidious information causing unjustified damage to the honour or dignity of any person. The right to intimacy is another concept that the statute employs in connection with the right of privacy. the Privacy Law protects a person’s “likeness” or “image” from a personal standpoint. offensive or generally made in an attempt to impugn the honour or dignity of a person. artistic. possessions or the activities that they perform in private places. On the contrary. shall be entitled to authorize or prohibit the “fixation” or “divulgation” (sic) of his/her image (Articles 16 to 19).

Sanctions derived from infractions of the Privacy Law cannot include prison (Articles 39 to 43). If it is not possible to make a public publication. the court will impose monetary sanctions to compensate the plaintiff that in no event shall exceed $1. Court decisions can be
359
. As an exception to the right of image or likeness the law does not protect: 1) people that are celebrities for the public service that they render. 2) the violation was triggered as the result of an illicit act. If the offence is repeated or continues. and 3) a cause-effect relationship exists between both events. shall have the right to bring a claim with the competent local court in the Federal District. in accordance with “social usage” (which is a rather ambiguous concept that the statute did not define).in films. pictures. starting from the date when the violation was caused (Articles 35 to 38).600. Infringement of any of the above-cited rights will produce a so-called moral damage and the person being victimized can start judicial actions. in places that are open to the public or occasions that are of public interest. The plaintiff has the burden of proving infringement and accordingly has to show that: 1) he/she suffered violation of any of the rights that the Privacy Law protects in his/her favour. photographs or other media (Article 26). the status they have reached in connection with their professional or artistic lives. the judge can impose new fines for an increased amount of up to an additional 50%. Upon receiving the claim the court will assess the violations of the defendant. social status. The medium that the defendant uses for the publication of the court’s decision shall be the same as that used to communicate the disruptive statements. requesting the cessation of abusive or unfair practice and the awarding of possible damages (Article 29). public or private condition. As a remedy the law requires the defendant to publish the decision and bear the corresponding costs. and 3) persons that appear by accident in pictures or in graphical information of a public event or news (Articles 19 and 21). the personal conditions of the plaintiff (age. among others) as well as the possible intent to inflict damage. Anybody being affected in his/her reputation by a publication made of his/her image without consent. provided that their image is fixed in public ceremonies or events. 2) celebrities whose likeness has been captured in cartoons. sketches or other forms. The statute of limitations for an action of this kind will be two years.

However. who are not entitled to enforce the rights provided in the law. The law does not define this concept and instead states that “effective malice” exists where: 1) the information was disclosed by knowing that it was false. referenced to the principles and notions dealing with the moral patrimony of persons and that have the mission to impose certain restrictions on the right of free speech. the Privacy Law. The Privacy Law will also be beneficial to clearly draw a line that divides people’s likeness from a personal and commercial angle. has brought improvement to the pre-existing civil law regime of privacy and personality rights. unless they can demonstrate that the defendant acted under “effective malice”.
360
. or 3) the infringement was perpetrated with the sole purpose to trigger harm or damage (Articles 28 to 34).contested by means of appeal and the appeal decisions still be taken to collegiate courts by virtue of Amparo constitutional claims (Article 44). Clarification still needed In conclusion. The legislator inserted the limitation rule for public servants since most of the activities that they perform occur in public places and are of public interest and since they can produce an impact on society. 2) the information was disclosed without thinking whether it was false or true. the incipient publicity rights system of the Copyright Law will now require thorough analysis. The civil theory of moral damage has been largely enriched by a set of focused legal rules. to fix the various inconsistencies and ambiguities in portrait and image rights and the resulting enforcement provisions. despite being limited in jurisdictional terms. this latter reserved to the provisions set in the Copyright Law. Chapter III of the Privacy Law imposes ad hoc rules for public servants.

SACM is entitled to seek amparo relief from a circuit court. SACM filed no evidence proving the rights of its members in the musical works used in the films or proving that the composers had asked SACM to represent them. The court ruled against SACM as. A Mexico City appeal court has rendered its decision in civil proceedings brought by the Sociedad de Autores y Compositores de Mexico (SACM). that collecting societies must observe in order to collect royalties or other remuneration. February 2009. International Report. a collecting society representing music composers. Meanwhile. However. and the collecting society’s right to act on behalf of the composer through a power of attorney that entitles the collecting society to collect royalties and take action. SACM filed the complaint claiming royalties for composers in connection with the showing of films in cinemas.
361
. it found that SACM had failed to demonstrate legal standing to take action against Cinemex. The decision is also important since collecting societies will be no longer allowed to impose unilateral conditions when dealing with other parties. a national cinema company.COURT REJECTS COLLECTING SOCIETY'S BID TO CLAIM ROYALTIES FOR FILM MUSIC Intellectual Asset Management (IAM). the Civil Code and the Copyright Law require that a collecting society prove:
• •
the rights of its members or the foreign composers represented through reciprocity agreements in the musical works. against Cinemex. The appeal court was emphatic that in order to collect royalties. If the circuit court confirms the lower court’s decision. it will set a new precedent regarding the rules and standards. at least concerning the rights and representation of their members. having assessed the evidence. users of works and the public will benefit from the new practice in terms of legal certainty.

During April and May 2003. A creation meeting the above criteria will be granted protection under copyright law. As proposed. The Mexican Congress debated a bill (Bill) which significantly amends the country's 1996 Copyright Law. The main aim of the Bill is to implement a number of new provisions that will grant additional rights to authors and holders of neighbounng rights such as artist and phonogram producers. there has been much debate over private reproduction rights and whether copyright holders should be compensated.PRIVATE REPRODUCTION RIGHTS AND EXEMPTIONS UNDER MEXICAN COPYRIGHT LAW Asia Law IP Review. July/August 2003. It is this act of creation and fixation of the author’s creation in a material and durable form that leads to
362
. the original draft of the Bill proposed amending the Copyright Law to include a compensation right for private copying of authored works. the new bill has not been without controversy.
An amendment bill recently passed by Congress will introduce sweeping changes to Mexico’s copyright legislation. In particular. Copyright protection and patrimonial copyrights Under Mexican copyright law. To the relief of many electronics manufacturers. Among other things. were opposed to this change. A number of interested groups. talent and ingenuity. including the electronic products industry. Mexico copyright law further requires that the work be embodied in a tangible medium of expression. manufacturers and vendors of equipment and media for reproducing copyrighted material would bear the obligation for covering compensation claims. the private copy levy system proposal was dropped from the final Bill Collecting societies who had lobbied Congress to retain the provision were disappointed and vowed in undertake new strategies to push for further reform This article analyzes the background to copyright protection in Mexico and examines why the private copy levy proposal failed to make it into the final version of the Bill. a work is the personal intellectual creation of an expression of human sensibility. However.

unless in case of education or investigative institutions or those that are not devoted to commercial activities”. Junstic persons shall not be entitled to that exception. This is not restricted merely to private copying in its sinctest sense and also includes reprography. Under this provision. On the other hand.that will be protected and not the medium or corpus mechanicum in which it has been embodied. they can be opposed for almost any purpose.copyright protection. subject to certain limitations. the Copyright Law contemplates one exception to the general right to control reproduction Article 1488IV) states as a limitation to copyright rights. Mexican copyright law also recognizes a limited number of other rights through which third parties are free to use a work without the author or copyright holder’s permission. however. the extent of the provision is
363
. without needing authorization from the author or artist and without having to pay compensation.e. subject to the proviso that such rights holders will be entitled to fair compensation. “The reproduction on one single occasion and of one copy. Under Mexican law. The only two examples considered under Mexican law are public communication of phonographic works and droit de suite – this latter right will be introduced into law under the Bill. However. it will always be intangible element –human creation. they will be made available for sale in the market or otherwise distributed). for the personal and private use of the person making it and without a purpose of gain. However. Reproduction rights are also wide in the sense that. Rights of reproduction. Accordingly. authors or copyright holders can hall the reproduction of their works by another party if the works are being reproduced for a public or commercial purpose (i. of a literary or artistic work. Example of such cases includes works whose nature allows or encourages them to be exploited on a wide scale. both authors and artists hold a reproduction right allowing them to authorize or prohibit third parties from making copies of their copyright works without limitation. Copyright holders may also stop the non-commercial reproduction of their cork if the copies are being made for free public distribution. people are entitled to make one copy of any work of authorship for their personal use.

Given these dual objectives.This situation has also driven new debate on where legislative lines should be drawn when assessing rights and exemptions. However the major technological advances of the past 50 years or so have seemed to move this problem to centre stage. the Directive has established a "phase out" provision that will ensure a transition from the current law
364
. who must now search for new ways to counter new threats. This legislative understanding of key importance when assessing whether or not a system of private copy levies would work in Mexico. but at the same time is designed to protect the nonauthorized reproduction of works in a digital environment by using Technical Protection Measures (TPM) and Digital Rights Management (DRMI. These new technologies pose daunting posing challenges to copyright owners and professional advisers. In summary. quickly followed Germany s lean The EU s 2001 Copyright Directive is premised on the principles established by the courts in Germany and elsewhere. have blurred the dividing line between public and private use. as commonly understood in the Anglo-Saxon copyright world. particularly those in the European Union (EU). but as an exception to reproduction rights or. Reproduction technologies particularly those involving computers and the internet. Mexican law does not regard private copying as a compensation right. the level of technology in existence meant that the reproduction of copyright works by private persons was of only trivial importance to many copyright holders.clearly to cover personal copying and not such activities as peer-to-peer file sharing or online or offline distribution of copies made without authorization.' Other countries. Germany was one of the first countries to make legislative changes in this area after ground-breaking decisions by German courts that ignored the traditional division of public and private use and imposed 'contributory liability" on the manufacturers and venders of equipment and media. fair use. Arguments in favour of private copying exemption Before the 1950s.

With respect to copyright exemptions. This test is also reflected in other international treaties such as the Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (Article 13) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty (Article 10). The current private copy exception under Mexican copyright Iaw clearly establishes that. an examination of the current copyright framework in Mexico shows that it would be extremely difficult to admit. Where only one system can apply at any one time. which do not conflict with a normal exploration of the work” and “do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder”. exemptions to copyright rights are only possible in certain special cases. While collecting societies and many copyright holders have expressed their disappointment with the decision. artists and other holders of copyright and neighboring rights. including levies. artist or holder of copyright. both natural and junstic persons are permitted to make one copy of a copyright work for private use without having to compensate the author. copyright owners may not oppose the reproduction of their works when made for private purposes and are not entitled to any compensation. an obligation on the manufacturers and vendors of equipment and media for reproducing works-of-authorship compensate rights holders for private copy activities. It is worth noting that when the Copyright Law was passed in 1996. let alone impose.. including private copying. in certain circumstances.system to a TMP/DRM system. Under these treaties.
365
.2). thereby avoiding unjustified double payments. to introduce a right of private copy in favour of authors. As a “fair use" type of exception. the Directive indicates that the member states of the EU must comply with the 'three-step test' as established under the provisions of the Berne Convention (Article 9. the Mexican legislature considered that the private copy exception of the law met the requirements of the three-step test. The current position in Mexico* As already noted Congress recently dropped a proposal made by various collecting societies..

Congress was wholly correct in its decision to dismiss the proposals of the collecting societies. Mexico has recognized that TMPs and DRMs require protection in online and offline digital environments. even where they have helped an infringer to commit an infringing act. Given these protections. Some of the reasons. Finally. and to third party involvement. Persons other than these are not considered to have infringed copyright. As a signatory to the Berne Convention. relate to the nature of private copying and exemptions. which have already been dealt with above. by virtue of other existing legislation. If anything. Given all these factors. the imposition of a levy system on manufacturers and vendors of equipment and media would be unconstitutional. it is even more unjust to expect manufacturers and vendors to pay such a fee. only exists to catch reproduction using analogue technologies in a world that is rapidly leaving such technologies behind.It would therefore be unfair for persons buying equipment or media used for making a copy of a copyrighted work to have to pay a compensation fee as part of the prince.nts that taxes and other such payments are subject to under terms of the Federal Constitution.the levies imposed would certainly not meet the requirerne. Other issues include taxation . it seems somewhat redundant to introduce a levy system that. and has amended the Copyright Law to ensure that circumvention of these systems is prohibited and that penalties will be imposed on violators. The case for imposing a levy on manufacturers and vendors becomes weaker still when it is noted that the Copyright Law does not recognize the concept of -contributory infringement. Liability under the law can only be imposed on persons who have directly used or exploited works of authorship. This clearly places manufacturers and vendors of equipment and media outside the sphere of responsibility for infringement.
366
.

as captured in photographs. Trademark and unfair competition law protect names and designs (including the names and likenesses of individuals) used as trademarks or service marks. reputation. In addition. the law provides for an administrative cause of action against unauthorized use of an individual’s image. the Copyright Law provides for a limited right of publicity – generally called the right of image – which protects the physical likeness of individuals. copyright law protects works of authorship. private life. In accordance with the law. configuration or physical aspects. Even though
367
. the law does not define the terms of protection of this right and does not seem to provide any time limits. the protection of names and images has been an important part of IP law in Mexico. However. which came into effect in 2006. Similarly. September/October 2008. decorum.
The new Privacy Law. contractual or extra-contractual damages. all individuals (not just celebrities) can oppose the use of their image. beliefs. it can be assigned to third parties or disposed of. The code provides remedies against moral damage suffered by an individual as a result of illicit acts affecting his or her “sentiments. whether or not the defendant is also found liable for objective. Schmidt and Abraham Díaz Arceo. paintings or drawings. as well as the name of the persons who authored the works (moral rights of paternity). or other trade symbols.IMAGE AND PUBLICITY RIGHTS IN MEXICO By Luis C. trademark and copyright law do not explore issues relating to the names and likenesses of individuals that go beyond the limits dictated by the general principles of IP law. Legislation In Mexico. or the opinion that others have of [him or her]”. However. Curiously. affections. World Trademark Review. enhances the protection of the rights to privacy and publicity under the Federal Civil Code and the Copyright Law Traditionally. A defendant that is found liable for moral damages must indemnify the plaintiff. honour. This right is patrimonial in nature. the Federal Civil Code protects the right to privacy.

The plaintiff later filed a civil action against the defendant seeking $5 million in damages based on:
• •
the performing artist’s rights under the Copyright Law. the plaintiff was not considered to be an artist. The plaintiff was unable to show that. In Solís v Radiomovil Dipsa SA de CV (Case 642/99). The new statute is entitled the Law on Civil Liability for the Protection of the Right to Private Life. Case law The courts have considered the issue of moral damage under the Federal Civil Code. The court ruled in favour of the defendant on the following grounds. the law suggests that the word ‘image’ means ‘portrait’. the defendant had infringed her moral rights. among others:
•
The phrases recorded by the plaintiff were not a work of authorship within the meaning of the Copyright Law.
The plaintiff requested the payment of royalties for the public performance of her vocal ‘interpretations’. by using the recordings of her voice. as well as the right of image under the Copyright Law.
•
•
New Privacy Law The federal district’s local congress passed legislation to protect the personalities and likenesses of individuals. Honour and Image in the Federal District (the Privacy Law). The statute introduced a systematized set of norms to protect the
368
.the term ‘image’ is not defined. the plaintiff was hired by the defendant to record four short phrases for use as instructions or commands in connection with mobile phones. effective as of 2006. In addition. Therefore. Even assuming that the plaintiff was the performer of a work. and the moral damage provision of the Federal Civil Code. she received full consideration for the services rendered. the plaintiff argued that the defendant had used the recordings of her voice in an attempt to exploit her personal rights under the Federal Civil Code.

artistic. domiciles. thereby improving the existing regime under the Federal Civil Code. and the freedom of speech. the publication of disparaging or offensive information is allowed in the context of literary.names. Under the law. provided that such information is not published for offensive purposes. ‘private life’ refers to all activities that are not destined to be public and that have no direct impact on society. honour and intimacy of individuals. However. it is prohibited to publish private data without consent or by illegal means. The law defines ‘honour’ as the evaluation of an individual’s socio-ethnic status based on his or her reputation or fame. The right to privacy is closely associated with the notion of ‘private life’. In contrast to the Copyright Law. but have also been found to apply to corporations in certain cases. The notion of honour also includes the individual’s ‘estimable feelings’. Third parties should not have access to the sphere of privacy of individuals (in particular. and the right to keep one’s private life secret. the law prohibits the publication of insulting or insidious information that causes unjustified damage to the honour or dignity of a person. which is very technical and difficult to apply in practice. Under the law. or when such publication is necessary to comply with a duty or to enforce a right. images. their families. The Privacy Law introduced the concept of ‘honour’. The Privacy Law aims to strike a balance between privacy and personality rights on the one hand. the Privacy Law protects a person’s likeness or image from a personal standpoint. Personality rights include:
•
the right to privacy. honour and likeness (which applies to individuals residing in the federal district).
•
Personality rights apply mainly to individuals. the right to information and the right to inform on the other. protects activities carried out in private. ‘Likeness’ is defined as the reproduction in a tangible medium of a person’s identifiable physical
369
. scientific or professional criticism. Under the law. The right to intimacy. possessions and activities performed in private). which is linked to the right to privacy.

pictures and photographs. in accordance with ‘social usage’ (this concept is ambiguous and is not defined in the statute). the personal conditions of the plaintiff (eg. An individual whose image has been published without his or her consent. in places that are open to the public or on occasions that are of public interest. such infringement has resulted from an illicit act.
However. Under the law. and the intent to inflict damage. age and social status). The plaintiff has the burden of proving infringement and. among other things.
•
•
An individual whose rights have been infringed may file a judicial action seeking moral damages.
The court will assess:
• •
the acts allegedly committed by the defendant. ‘Tangible media’ include films. must show that:
• • •
his or her rights under the Privacy Law have been infringed. and an award of damages. and individuals who appear by accident in pictures of a public event or in the news.features. and there is a causal relationship between both events. accordingly. may file suit before the competent local court in the federal district in order to obtain:
• •
the cessation of the abusive or unfair practice. accordingly. celebrities whose likenesses are used in cartoons and sketches. the law does not protect:
•
celebrities pictured during public ceremonies or events. may authorize or prohibit the ‘fixation’ or ‘divulgation’ of their image. individuals have rights over their own image and. thereby damaging his or her reputation.
•
370
.

First-instance court decisions may be appealed. Breach of the Privacy Law cannot be punished with imprisonment.
•
The legislature included this exemption on the grounds that the activities of public servants are carried out mainly in public places and are of public interest. If found guilty. or the defendant disclosed information with the sole purpose of causing harm or damage. a constitutional proceeding intended to protect a citizen's constitutional rights). the defendant disclosed information without checking whether it was true or false. who are not entitled to rely on the rights provided by the law. merely stating that ‘effective malice’ occurs where:
• •
the defendant knowingly disclosed false information. the Privacy Law has improved the former civil law regime. The medium in which the court’s decision is published must be the same as that in which the infringing information was communicated. However. The civil law theory of ‘moral damage’ has been enhanced by a new set of legal rules which impose certain restrictions on the right to free speech. the law does not define this concept.
371
. Conclusion Despite its limitations. If it is not possible to publish the decision. Appeal decisions may also be appealed by virtue of an amparo claim (ie. the court will order the defendant to pay a fine not exceeding $1. the latter being governed by the provisions of the Copyright Law.600. the court may impose a further fine of up to an additional 50%. Chapter III of the Privacy Law sets forth rules for public servants. Should the offence be repeated or continue. the defendant will be required to publish the decision and bear the costs of the plaintiff. unless they can demonstrate the existence of ‘effective malice’ on the part of the defendant.Such actions must be filed within two years of the date on which the violation occurred. The Privacy Law also helps to differentiate between the use of an individual’s likeness from a personal and from a commercial angle.

However. the legislature must now address the inconsistencies and ambiguities of the publicity rights system under the Copyright Law.
372
.

and the incorporation of agencies like "IMCINE"3 a regulatory body in charge of promoting "quality" national films4 by assigning all sorts of resources. and for granting tax and other sorts of incentives. where economic return is expected. Sometime later. when the current "Film Law" was passed1. distribution. under the framework of an effective legal system that with certain modifications and improvements has characterized the industry's spirit. the classification thereof. Government and talent developed successfully. working hand in hand.the Film Law has set down rules in connection with the production. the
373
. the commercialization of films. assisted by the administrative regulations of 20012. transcending time until today. "FIDECINE"5 . and in general.the manager of a fund for investing in new film projects. October 2006
Luis Schmidt explores the nature of copyright protection for Mexican Films In Summary . exhibition. Amongst other important legal provisions. Regulatory distribution aspects of film production and
In 1949 the Mexican Congress adopted a statute for controlling film importation and exhibition.This article analyses the regulatory aspects of film production and distribution. TAX AND LEGAL REGIMES Copyright World Issue # 164. as well as the copyright protection regime for films
The Mexican film industry emerged in the 1930s under unique creative patterns that imposed a trend. and the "National Film Library" – keeping a film library and catalogue.The Mexican film industry emerged in the 1930s. which stood in force until 1992. Government and talent has developed succesfully under the framework of an effective legal system that with certain modifications has characterised the industry's spirit .FUNDING.

Nacional Financiera. The Film Law makes abundant references regarding film distribution and commercialization. In 2004 president Vicente Fox sent a bill to Congress with the purpose of privatizing the studio. it has been used as a filming facility for thousands of Mexican and foreign productions and co-productions. they can create fund reserves for up to a 100% of the revenues that FIDECINE or FOPROCINE obtain from the distribution of the film.000 per year to be distributed depending on the number of film making projects that competent authority’s approve8. Incorporated as a private company in 1944 and acquired by the Government in 1950. recruit talent and personnel. the laws have imposed a system of tax and other incentives to stimulate the industry7. insurance. Tax authorities shall restrict the incentive to $45. In addition to funding. when the film has received international or national prices. CONAFILME can recommend the studios that better suit the producer's needs and that includes Estudios Churubusco in the first place. search all types of business and legal information. labour and migratory. stipulated in the Film Law and Regulations or in the FIDECINE and FOPROCINE rules.9 IMCINE has relied on CONAFILME since 1995 to assist filmmakers to find locations. IMCINE is indeed the
374
. it is possible for producers to credit income tax for up to 10% of the total investment. a national bank of development. In particular. FIDECINE and FOPROCINE are legally empowered to manage the system of incentives. They can obtain cash incentives for future projects. The role of IMCINE in film distribution and promotion is relevant and crucial. Thus. such as marketing and promotion. Likewise. which was rejected10. Producers are entitled to additional incentives. and seek government permits and licenses for everything concerning the shooting and production of the film. they can authorize deductions to investment projects in accordance with the Income Tax Law.Government added a fund called "FOPROCINE"6. Estudios Churubusco is the most important studio in Latin America. runs an incentive program for the financing of films in the final stage of production or distribution. By virtue of an amendment that the Mexican Congress approved in December 2005. but for the granting of credit and support to Mexican experimental producers. filming equipment and laboratories. having similar attributions to FIDECINE. including copyright.

Copyright Protection of Films ln conformance with the Copyright Law. films are cinematographic and audiovisual works at the same time. Also. The Film Law is broad enough as to how the film will be distributed: for exhibition. listed them as a species of audiovisual
375
. divided into five categories13. From the regulatory side the Film Law would add that a film is a cinematographic work. IMCINE is a permanent assistant of national producers seeking distribution or marketing options. b) a definition of films' "commercial exploitation" — basically referring to their exhibition. full-length or shortfilm. The law of 1963 was the first to recognize cinematographic works as an independent category22. the law views films as original creations made by talented authors and artists. video and digital distribution12. e) certain rules for dubbing and subtitling. broadcasting. that are copied in a tangible object like celluloid. video or digital. and f) an obligation that exhibitors devote 10% of the total projection time to national films15. in any form or modality"19. the Film Law provides amongst others: a) a definition of "distributor" — understood as the intermediary activity by which the products are supplied to exhibitors and vendors in ancillary media11. having the characteristic that is "national or foreign. Films were regarded derivative works in conformance with the copyright laws of 184720 and 195621. Likewise. c) a classification system. with or without sound. In addition to the above. TV broadcasting. The Copyright Law of 1996. in Mexico and internationally. since the words "cinematographic" and "audiovisual" stand for moving images or pictures. having on the other hand the right to freely set up the box office ticket price16. who require partnership or other strategic solutions or who in general are in the search of alternatives for the film's exhibition. under the supervision of a producer who coordinates all creative and administrative efforts18. d) an obligation for distributors to obtain state department permits for exhibition or commercialisation14. video cassette or a digital registry and that are perceived by technical means17.manager of a budget that it has utilized in attending film festivals or organizing them. currently in force. as defined by the Copyright Law.

.works23 and provided a set of substantive rules for films and audiovisual works24 and for so-called "audiovisual production contracts"25. or to license them for film distribution. For obvious reasons. Producers need to consider the following: . producers will find it possible to receive funds from banks or from their partners in exchange for a proportion of the film's rights or generally by disposing of all the rights over the film through full assignments. assignments of a film's rights shall be valid when agreed for an indefinite time. Producers are the legitimate owners of patrimonial rights and it is them
376
. For example. The law considers the director. The law has recognized the vastness of films' business transactions and has provided protective tools that are wide and comprehensive. subject to restrictions33. broadcasting or digital networks. due to the nature of audiovisual productions and the investment that they require. exhibition or for use in ancillary media.In general terms. The producer is free to assign raid rights to third parties. film and TV programmes is determined solely by the medium used to disseminate the work31. Why the legislators of 1996 believed that video might not be an audiovisual work is a question that has no answer. The Copyright Law confers to the producer all patrimonial rights over the film26. like video. without a limitation28. they are authors of the audiovisual works as such and are thus entitled to patrimonial copyright rights.Video is not referenced as an audiovisual work and video producers are merely the subjects of neighbouring rights30. assignments are restricted to time limitations under the Copyright Law and accordingly can only exceed 15 years depending on the magnitude of the work's investment29. photographer(s) and cartoonist(s) as authors of the works that are used in connection with the film or audiovisual production32. composer(s). writer(s) of the script or argument. The foregoing is possible regardless of whether the audiovisual production has not started or has not concluded by the time that the transfer has been made27. Likewise. since the difference between video. in whole or part.

However. digital technology transmission or to reproduce39 the film for distribution by sale or rental40.exclusively who can exploit the films. as well as the right to subtitle41. economic rights other than reproduction. Assignments. Some commentators have sustained that there is nothing other than audiovisual production agreements that parties can rely on in connection with films. like the direction. by chance. The bill of amendment has triggered intense litigation at Supreme Court level36. The contract can be a general licence or assignment. the right to adapt. negotiate the rights to publicly perform38 the literary work as adapted. In 2003 Congress approved a public performance remuneration right that would coincidentally strengthen the "contribution" rule of the Copyright Law35. As an important provision stipulates. all patrimonial rights required for the production. The same is true in connection with other creative contributions. a producer can obtain from the writer the right to adapt37 the same to the film and can. an idea like that
377
. by which the writer would assign. since they exclude musical works and. through public exhibition. licences or work-for-hire "employment"43 or "independent contribution"44 agreements are statutory alternatives available to film producers. on an exclusive basis. once having "consented" to "contribute" to the film it will not be possible that the authors oppose the film's exploitation34. distribution and public performance of the work. broadcasting. the remuneration system has been deemed compatible with the "contribution" limitation by allowing authors to collect monetary compensation from the public performance of the works linked to the film. authors would be impeded to authorize or prohibit the exploitation of the work. once having "consented" — authorized by any form available in the laws — the incorporation of their "contribution". But audiovisual production agreements seem to be limiting. It is unlikely in the end that producers use audiovisual production agreements to obtain all the rights needed to make the film. distribution and public performance—for example. In other words. that are required for the film. typified in the Copyright Law. a work-forhire or an "audiovisual production" agreement. The typified contractual figure would possibly have the advantage that assignments would not be the subject of the general time restriction of the Copyright Law42. However. in general. If the film is based on a novel or other forms of underlying literary works.

As a short reference. Musical works are expressly excluded from "audiovisual production" agreements and accordingly. Performers hold additional remuneration rights for all forms of exploitation of their interpretations49. as some would state. Performing artists — screen actors and musicians playing in the soundtrack — are protected under neighboring rights and are thereby subject to a particular legal regime. 2001. the reproduction of the performances as fixed in objects and the public communication of the performances48. reproduce and publicly perform artistic interpretations50. 2 Published in the Official Gazette of March 29. 4 Articles 3 and 4 of the Film Law provide a definition of "national films". need to be granted by the composer directly and not by the music publisher holding the patrimonial rights over the songs46.
Notes 1 Published in the Official Gazette of December 29. performer agreements require "non-opposition" provisions. 3 Mexican Film Institute. whereas Article 7 dictates that a "national production" shall be that made by a Mexican or in accordance with an international co-production agreement. Accordingly. including compositions and their arrangements. 378
. Performers do not have a full exclusive copyright right as authors do.seems inconsistent with the Copyright Law as well as other legislative and constitutional contracting principles45. In keeping with that. Producers can thus utilize all sorts of contractual vehicles in order to obtain the rights to make the soundtrack of the film. the Copyright Law has typified an agreement for the right to fix. However. It was incorporated in the year of 1983. they can negotiate the transfer of music rights with authors or publishers and with phonogram producers. if the music will be incorporated into the film by means of a sound recording47. apart from labour or service type clauses. ensuring that producers are entitled to incorporate the performances into the film and to use the same in connection with all media. the law can be interpreted to allow that assignees enter synchronisation agreements for musical works. 1992. and reports to CONACULTA "Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes". dependent of the Ministry of Public Education (Article 41 of the Film Law). They essentially hold a "Rome type" right to oppose the fixation of their performances. producers are required to obtain rights from composers via synchronisation agreements that.

2005. 379
. 9 Nacional Finaciera. the Government Pulls Its Support. Article 19. Tina. "without prejudice of the rights of authors. Television and Cinematography). Chapter III of the Copyright Law (articles 94 to 100). published in the Official Gazette of December 24. published in the Official Gazette of December 21. 1999). Fidecine began activities until 2001 since it was incorporated only after the publication date of Regulation to the Film Law (March 29. last paragraph. last paragraph aggregates. The release of the same by virtue of the 1992 Film Law and the reform of 1999. December II . 1997. Article 17 refers to distributors' monopolistic practices and their prohibition. 19 Article 5 of Film Law. 17 Article 94 of the Copyright Law. 10 Alcérreca. 18 Articles 95 and 98 of the Copyright Law. Before the reform the incentive was restricted to 3% of the investment. the date when Fidecine came into operation. 14 Film Law. 1963. Una Mirada a los Estudios Churubusco. made it possible for private exhibitions chains to grow. Article 16. published in the Official Gazette of December 29. 1956. Privately constituted on December 2. 13 Film Law. Press Bulletin No. Rafael. published in the Official Gazette of December 31. The division of the State department is RTC (General Direction of Radio. Article 20. 7 Articles 31 and 32 of the Film Law. Mexico. 2003 Rosenberg. in virtue of a trust agreement (no. published in the Official Gazette of January 14. 20 Articles 4 and 6 of the Copyright Law. producer can take all actions necessary for the exploitation of the work". 21 Articles 2 and 4 of the Copyright Law. states. The New York Times Company. Mexico. Estudios Churubusco-Azteca. 2003. 8 Article 226 of Income Tax Law. Articles 16 to 23. two years after the amendment to Article 33 of the Film Law (January 5. Article 26. 2005. Formerly prices were subject to control. 1154-4) entered into by various government agencies. The bodies that preceded Imcine were active until August 8. mediumlength between 30 and 60 minutes. "unless otherwise agreed. Article 99. 11 Film Law. 22 Article 7 i) of the Copyright Law. 75/05. 2001). Editorial Observer: Just as Mexican Movies Become Chic Again. 16 Film Law. 15 Film Law. 26 Article 96 of the Copyright Law gives a definition of producer and Article 97. 24 Title IV.5 Fund for Investment and Incentives to Film. Chapter VI of the Copyright Law (articles 68 to 78). 23 Article 13 IX and 95 of the Copyright Law. the law reputes the producer as the holder of patrimonial rights of the audiovisual work as a whole". 1948. September 4. 12 Film Law. Article 18. Article 9 of the Regulations of the Law states that a full-length movie is that exceeding 60 minutes. 25 Title III. and shortlength less than 30 minutes. USA. Regulations. Articles 24 and 25 . 6 Fund for Quality Film Production. 2001. 1996.

41 Article 68 of the Copyright Law.by any means. 2003. Year V. Brussels and Paris Acts. Number 18. Amendment published in the Official Gazette of July 23.. 27. 39 Article 27 (I) of the Copyright Law. Authors can exploit their contributions separated from the audiovisual production. 47 Article 131 of the Copyright Law. reproduction and public performance. 37 Article 27 (VI) of the Copyright Law and Article 14 of the Berne Convention. 38 Article 27 (Il)(b) and (c) and 27 (III) of the Copyright Law.. 30 Articles 135 to 138 of the Copyright Law. Derechos Patrimoniales en la Obra Audiovisual en la LFDA. 32 Article 96 of the Copyright Law.27 Articles 34 of the Copyright Law and 16 of the Regulations. 46 Article 58 of the Copyright Law. without the authors. Paris Act. 44 Article 83 of the Copyright Law. 2005). 2005. 48 Article 118 of the Copyright Law. first paragraph. 29 Article 33 of the Copyright Law and 17 (1 and V) of the Regulations. The Copyright Law has adopted the Treaty's standard despite the fact that the producer. is the holder of patrimonial rights over the film.Page 21. 28 and 30 of the Copyright Law. public communication and form of disposal. 40 Article 27 (IV) of the Copyright Law. 50 Article 121 of the Copyright Law. 43 Article 84 of the Copyright Law. 31 Berne Convention. in Article 99 this is not a possibility. 42 Article 72 and 43 of the Copyright Law. of the Copyright Law not only refers to fixation. Revista Mexicana del Derecho de Autor.
380
. 49 Article 117 bis. Paris Act. 35 Article 26 bis. Juan José. 36 Cinemas La Huasteca (Amparo en revisión 45/2005. 45 Marín López. 28 Articles 24. resolved June 10. but also other forms of use or exploitation (". 34 Article 99. and the "analog procedures" concept. While under Article 68 assignments can be exclusive and unlimited. This article is contradictory to what is stated in Article 99. 2005) and Cinemex Toluca II (Amparo en revisión 105/2005. 33 Article 97 of the Copyright Law.. second paragraph of the Copyright Law based on Article 14 bis (2)(b) of the Berne Convention. resolved April 27.."). Mexico.

since your domain name can tell the on-line world something about who you are. hereinabove 1. as we have read from some of the court decisions in the U.13 a. case of Princeton Review v.S. Domain names are kind of like postal addresses.INTERNET DOMAIN NAMES. neither domain names nor any other internet issues would be so unusual or novel. 2.).f. and to report on the endeavors and actual measures already taken in their own country or region.com”. “Domain names are to Internet what addresses are to Postal Service. The ability of domain names to serve as trademarks by the fact that they are used for accessing to websites that offer and
398
. In our concept. however. protection of domain names is a new subject that requires attention. Kaplan the Court distinguishes the following three points of analysis from the fact that a third party sought and obtained domain name registration for “kaplan.S. in Mexico. there are still no cases concerning or involving domain names that have been brought with the Mexican Industrial Property Institute (IMPI) or the Courts. as well as to make their own suggestions of comparable measures or other solutions of the specific domain name problems. really. They’re more than that. its real owner: 1. 1999. without the authorization of Princeton Review. As we would know and be aware. TRADEMARKS AND TRADE NAMES Report Q 143 in the name of the Mexican Group. As it is in the rest of the world. or should be apart from the general principles and rules of trademark law. there is much to study and say in this regard.12): problems of stricter registration
to solve such problems outside the courts (cfr 1.
Introduction (a) The Groups are invited to comment on the above described endeavors: to prevent legal domain name conditions (cfr. vanity license plates and bill boards. In the U. all rolled into one digital enchilada”. as it has triggered legal questions of many sorts.

mx.. 3. and . which maintains a register of mx.net. That website displays a Spanish version of the contract and related policies as well.advertise the sale of products or services. For qualifying to record with the register.gob. wherein it is established that registering a domain name does not mean registering a trademark. In addition. . there is no a central official or government agency that would keep a list or register of domain names for use in connection with the Internet.w. NIC MEXICO requests that the server subject to the connection is located in Mexico. there is indeed a private organization named NIC MEXICO.org. . Clause 7. It would be thus a requirement that the applicant consults that is not violating a registered mark.mx. If the mark registered with the domain name register happens to be a well known one. 2. can be enhanced: 1. it would likely represent a source of confusion among Internet users over the source of the information located at this address.. Article 3. Article 3. N.6 of the policy. .2 of the service agreement.com..mx. which states that NIC MEXICO shall not allow registration of geographic names and indications.L. Of special interest the following provisions of both the policy and the agreement.mx. it requests the user to execute a service agreement.4 of the policy. if the domain name pertains to someone else distinct from the owner.
399
. 3.edu. A sample of an English version of the filing procedure and costs is available at w. and that NIC MEXICO is not responsible if trademarks are registered as domain names.nic. In Mexico. (it is called “Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey”). it very well might represent a factor of bad intent. which would necessarily translate into a real damage of the goodwill in that mark.mx.w.mx. excepting for the date of domains under gob. However.mx. . Thus. related to a prestigious university in Monterrey. which confirms the provisions of the policy. and that certain written policies are met.

if no other identical published trade name exists”. for expressly stating that a valid registered trademark can be employed for enforcing non-authorized used of that symbol as a domain name. A trademark that is identical or confusingly similar to a trade name applied to a company or an industrial. commercial or service establishment. Not registrable as trademarks are: … XVII. The LIP provides this type of solution in case of trade names by stating the following: “Article 90. as it was explained above. as a de facto authority. NIC MEXICO is at present imposing the rules of the game as its own will. Accordingly. in the following cases:
400
. Among others. Article 3. although it provides limited relief. it can be appreciated that NC MEXICO has adopted the same passive attitudes of other regional or local registers. From the foregoing. “Article 91.8 of the policy. corporate or firm name of an establishment or corporate person. Other laws as the law on Industrial Property (LIP) should probably be amended also. NIC MEXICO does not consider itself an enforcer of rights. the primary activity of which is the production or sale of the products or the rendering of the services purported to be protected with the trademark.4. A registered trademark or a confusingly similar trademark that has been previously registered may not be used nor may it form a part of the trade name. wherein it is provided that in case that NIC MEXICO refuses an application of domain name. when involving registrations of domain names consisting of trademarks. and provided that the trade name has been used prior to the date of filing of an application for a trademark registration or to the date of declared use thereof. NIC MEXICO shall send to an ad hoc authorization committee. The foregoing will not apply when the trademark application is filed by the holder of the trade name. applicant shall be entitled to file a proposal before an appeal panel or committee. it is clear that the performance of NIC MEXICO requires better guidelines and ruling. In addition. for its review. all those applications for domain name registrations that NIC MEXICO considers to be offensive or going against the principles of Internet.

Trademark law (b) Can a domain name be a suitable candidate for trademark protection. In the cases of establishments or corporate persons whose activity is the production. The provisions hereof will not apply when the trade names. as they are capable to distinguish products or services coming from the same source and pertaining to the holder of the domain name. need to meet the principles and general standards of Trademark Law. of the trade name. When there is no written consent of the holder of the trademark registration or of the person empowered to do so. A violation of this precept will lead to the application of the sanctions referred to in this law. we consider that it is possible that domain names perform as trademarks. 2. of the respective corporate or firm names and payment of harm and damages. and II. This question cannot be answered so easily. and be duly registered with IMPI. and a judicial claim may be filed to suppress use of the registered trademark or to the trademark confusingly similar to one previously registered.1-2. corporate or firm name included the trademark prior to the date of filing or of the first declared use of the registered trademark. domain names do not merely serve as the IP address of a particular server that is connected to the Internet. In principle. or at least the second level portion thereof. Notwithstanding the feasibility that domain names can function as trademarks. in order to qualify for protection they would require that they are used in compliance with the terms that are set forth in article 130 of the LIP and 62 of the Regulations to the LIP.4). which state as follows:
401
. the domain name. and if so. for qualifying for trademark protection. Of course.I. under which pendings? Please elaborate on the specific problems or peculiarities which may arise in that respect (cfr. As it is correctly mentioned in the questionnaire. import or marketing of commodities or services equal or similar to those to which the registered trademark is applied.

The following would very likely not give room the interpretations in the direction that the mark is in use by the mere fact that the products or services are advertised. If a trademark is not used within three consecutive years on the products or services for which it was registered. it will be understood that a trademark is in use. 2. the user may actually buy the product or be rendered a service. unless the holder or user who has a registered license used it during three consecutive immediately preceding years prior to the filing of an application for an administrative declaration of lapse. I will be also understood that a trademark is in use when it is applied to goods to be exported. the scope of article 62 of the Regulations to the LIP is not wide enough to protect advertising as a form of trademark use. (c) To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trademarks also apply to domain names (cfr. Article 62 of the Regulation to LIP. as it requires that any mark is applied in connection with a product that is then put in commerce or a service that is rendered. among other cases.Article 130. Domain names work. This would
402
. In conclusion. when the goods or services distinguished by the said trademark have been introduced into Mexican commerce or are available in the market in the country under the said trademark. article 62 of the Regulations to the LIP understands the meaning of trademark use in a narrow form. or unless circumstances arise beyond the will of the trademark holder that constitute an obstacle for its use. its registration will lapse. such as import restrictions or other governmental requirements applicable to the commodities or services to which the trademark is applied. As it can be appreciated. without then being subject to a subsequent commercial operation. in general as a source for locating websites that advertise products or services. if not supported with further sales or services. this would bring complications in protecting them by trademark law.5)? Domain names require to comply with the registrability standards in the Trademark Law if they are to be protected as trademarks. unless that by accessing the website. For the purposes of Article 130 of this Law. in number and manner corresponding to the customary uses in commerce.

8 and 9)? The same answer in point (d) above would be reproduced here (f) Is the requirement that maintaining use must occur in the territory of the trademark automatically met as a consequence of
403
. as in the contrary. however. and would thus require to be reviewed and amended. It is possible extending trademark protection to domain names. 2. even if the junior applicant is dedicated to essentially different activities. Also. (e) Can the use of a domain name as an IP-address of a server on which products and/or services are offered for which the domain name is registered as a trademark qualify as maintaining use of that trademark (cfr. as long as they are used in connection with different products or services. For example. but they need to be used in conformance with what it is established in the LIP and Regulations. under such principles. This rule may not apply to domain names. the causes of invalidation of this type of registrations are very limited. As mentioned above. what are the requirements for such sufficient use? This is related to the answer given in point (b) above. registration of domain names may sometimes conflict with the principles of trademark law. any registration that is granted on a domain name may lapse for lack of use. trademarks will be protected even if they are similar to others that have been previously registered.6 and 7)? If so. NIC MEXICO’s registration efforts require to be better regulated. which will require attention (d) Can the prior use of a domain name which includes a trademark constitute sufficient use in order to qualify the subsequent filing by another party of said trademark as a filing in bad faith (cfr. Notwithstanding the foregoing. it requires also that the mark is applied to products or services that are sold in commerce. 2. Prior use is protected under Mexican Law.mean that invalidation rules should fully apply to domain names. wherein a single registration may appear to cover the entire range of products and services. and nobody else would be entitled to obtain a domain name registration for the same or similar name. The foregoing may very well develop into serious disputes and conflicts.

represents an exception to the general rule. but in connection with essentially different products or services.the global nature of the Internet? If not. Additional arguments for the finding of infringement would exist if the trademark happens to be a well known one in the terms of article 90 (XV) of the LIP. We would tend to believe that under the specialty principle. On the other hand.10 and 11). This would be questionable under Mexican Law as it would not be the user of the website who is doing the business by promoting.8)? The answer in point (d) is applicable here also. there would not be an action possible. if the server is located in Mexico. This may not embrace the possibility that a trademark is used in Mexico by the fact that Internet users may have access to websites residing at servers located abroad. it is in principle possible that domain names infringe third parties’ legitimate rights to their trademarks. (g) Can an Internet domain name infringe another party’s rights to a trademark ? If so. complies with territorial requirements. used as a mark. please describe which further requirement must be (cfr. use of the mark has to occur in the territory where the mark has been registered and the scope and extent of this rule is also strict. As mentioned above. it if would be possible. which of course. It would not be clear under the LIP. we would not consider being a problem that the domain name. (h) What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that his use of the domain name constitutes infringement of a trademark in territories whether the domain
404
. selling and/or rendering the products or services. 2. Use of trademark in the territory of Mexico is an additional requirement in the law. Again. under which conditions? Please elaborate on the scope of protection of trademarks against domain names and deal in your answer also with famous and well-known trademarks (cfr. unless the case of a well known trademark. 2. it if would be possible to enforce trademarks rights when the domain name is used as a trademark and that this latter pertains to a third party having protection over the name.

there is no question that they would be protected.13 as to the use of a domain name on Internet for whatever product or service if that domain name is identical or similar to a third party’s mark which has been registered for means of communication? The problem would have to be solved on a case-by-case basis. besides the fact that the domain name holder restrains itself from actually selling products or rendering services in the conflicting territory of conflict. (i) What is the answer to the question raised hereinbefore under 2. Under Mexican Law. specially referring to territorial disputes. Finding infringement by the mere fact that Internet is a communication medium would be like saying that trade or service marks in any particular class would violate the rights of the holder of a registration in international class 35.g. without even having to analyze the present question. it should definitively not be considered as a cause of trademark infringement. we agree with the fact that a notice or disclaimer would be of great assistance in avoiding conflicts.12). The notice or disclaimer should work out fine. Consequently. if they advertise or promote the sale of their products or services. Concerning the access that users in the conflicting territory may have to the server belonging to the domain name holder. as it would be the user and not the domain name holder who is accessing the server. 2.13 of the questionnaire may not be good ones. and would probably confirm the opinion that has been explained herein. The examples used at point 2. and located outside the conflicting jurisdiction. we believe that the domain name holder would have good arguments against infringement claims of trademark owners having rights in the territory of conflict. disclaimers (cfr. If the foregoing is met. In principle we would tend to believe that no infringement arguments would be available. as they refer to well known marks as LE MONDE and THE ECONOMIST.name holder has no commercial interest? Please elaborate on the contents of e.
405
. in our opinion disclaimers should represent good and effective means for showing good faith in the adoption of domain names. in situations wherein conflicts may arise. We would rather use examples of less known marks in the communication services field. Yes. unless there is a base for the finding of likelihood of confusion.

The legal grounds for such cause of actions would be found in the general principles of law. and in our opinion they may be extended to cases where NIC MEXICO grants registrations of domain names that have been previously approved and recorded with the authorities intervening in the corresponding of the companies. and maintain. 3. (k) To what extent do the rules on absolute invalidity of trade names also apply to do main names (cfr.Trade name law (i) Can the registration and use of an Internet domain name be sufficient to create. under the name as approved by the government. who conducts a search of references on trade names that have been previously approved. all the foregoing has never tested. who firstly publicly attests on its incorporation. and it would not be possible then to claim rights by simply using the domain name as the name of a company. in view of the global nature of the Internet. and represents an opinion only. It may be possible to bring action before the Administrative Courts requesting the suppression or modification of trade names that are identical or similar and that identify companies engaged in same or similar activities. any use of a domain name which includes the company name of the domain name holder sufficient? If not.2 and 3)? No. 3. If these actions would be available at all. However. a trademark right to the second-level domain name included therein? Is. under Mexican Law there are certain rules and formalities that have to be complied with in order to create rights over a trade name. For creating the rights it is needed that the applicant requests approval from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (l) Does the global nature of the Internet imply that the normal criteria of infringement of a trade name apply to any use of an
406
. which additional requirements need to be fulfilled (cfr. it sure would be in cases where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs approves two or more similar or identical trade names.4)? No specific trade name invalidation rules are contemplated in the Mexican Laws. Then the company is set before a notary public. and then seeks recordal with the Register of Companies.

4.5)? There are no provisions under any of the Mexican Laws that deal with infringement of trade names. as mentioned. as applied to trade names. Please discuss the legal possibilities to deal with the practice generally referred to as “domain name grabbing” (cfr. (m) What measures can be taken by the domain name holder in order to prevent that his use of the domain infringes another party’s trade name in territories where the domain name holder has no (significant) commercial interest? Again would the use of a disclaimer be effective? If so.6). the Mexican Laws do not contemplate infringement provisions. please elaborate on the nature thereof and provide examples.identical or similar domain name? Or must there be a specific relation (or some sort) between your Group’s country or region and the use of the domain name (or the offerings which are made on the server of which the domain name is the address. The following constitute administrative infringements:
407
. cfr 3. Unfair competition (n) Can the registration and use of a domain name which is identical or similar to another party’s trademark and/or trade name be successfully attacked on the basis of general rules of unfair competition or tort? If so. In this regard. please elaborate on the contents of such disclaimer (cfr. article 213 (IX) of the LIP establishes the following: First of all we would quote the unfair competition provision that is established at the LIP: “Article 213. However.1 and 2)? The rules of unfair competition could possible give standing to actions taken against non-authorized uses and registration of domain names consisting of trademarks belonging to third parties. Disclaimers would be appropriate signs of good faith in the use of domain names. 3. under which condition? If an element of bad faith is required.

It may also be possible to consider an unregistered symbol as the standing for this action. that are same or similar as to those produced. products or services. error or deceit.“IX. the trademark or distinctive symbol may not necessarily be in use in terms of article 62 of the Regulations to the LIP. c) That services are provided or products are sold authorization. licenses or specification of a third party. acts which confuse or lead the public to confusion. sold or rendered by the trademark owner. as long as it is capable to function as a source indicator. without foundation: a) The existence of a relationship establishment and that of a third party. As it can be appreciated. that there is association between its place of business. promoting or offering for sale products or services. Sanctions (o) Which sanctions can a court order against the holder of a domain name which infringes the trademark or trade name rights of another party or which is otherwise unlawful vis-á-vis party? Please indicate whether the court has the power to
408
. by making it believe or presume. it may be possible to find infringement on a trademark that is being employed as a domain name for advertising. within a particular industry or market. error or deceit. licenses or the authorization of a third party. during the exercise of industrial or commercial activities. Under the foregoing. under the
d) That the product in question originates in a territory. a competitor performs acts that confuse or lead the public to confusion. For that end. and that of the competitor whose rights are being affected. The standing of such an action would be that. the above referenced provision is broad enough to comprise as an infringement the non-authorized use of a domain name as a trademark. To perform. and it could even extend to any form that can be imagined by which the consumer public falls into confusion. or association between one
b) That products are manufactured under specifications. region or locality other than the true place of origin in such manner as to induce the public to error as to the geographic origin of the product”.

or by virtue of his domicile. The principle of the Mexican Constitution can be applied internationally. For that be likely to happen. if something has to be said here. International private law (p) Which rules of the international private law of your Group’s country or region apply in order to determine the applicable law in a dispute regarding the infringement of a trademark of trade name by an Internet domain name (cfr. as it is sometimes hard to know where rights are being infringed and accordingly. basically. submitted to the venue of the Court that resolved. IMPI is empowered to order the ceasing (preliminary and permanent) on the use of a particular mark. 5. which law should be applied and which particular Court should exercise the venue over the infringement. we would doubt it from the scope of such a provision IMPI would have the extra power to directly order the transfer of a domain name from the infringing party to the trademark/trade name owner. Giving answer to this question would definitively require a deep study. although they could sometime be criminal (prison) and civil (declaration of damages) as well. The fundamental administrative sanction would be imposed by IMPI and is as follows: In addition. However.directly order the transfer of such domain name from the infringing party to the trademark/trade name owner (cfr. however. and the statute is silent on that regard. 6. They would be administrative. In Mexico.1 and 2).1 and 2). IMPI would require express powers conferred by the LIP. It is clear that the territorial aspect of the domain name problem has a major resemblance and importance. Personal notification has to be served in every single of these cases. article 121 of the Federal Constitution establishes that resolutions declared in a particular State dealing with personal rights shall be enforced at other different States when the person against whom the resolution was pronounced has voluntarily. we would
409
. The question here would be how to apply the foregoing principle to domain names.

has registered its. although they share characteristics with other forms for identifying locations such as telephone numbers. (q) Which international private law rules apply in order to determine which court is competent to deal with the above mentioned dispute (cfr. which has had a great impact in the communication field.consider that in principle. who had access by employing the domain name. NIC MEXICO is a private entity in charge of the register of. 6. This may be acceptable under Mexican Law. In our opinion this would happen if the alleged infringer would be found to have infringed trademark rights by transmitting the website to a user located abroad.3)? This question was answered before. The World Wide Web is a good example of how information can now cross borders without limitations. and has followed certain policies. In this new era servers function as recipients or correspondence. In any event. It is thus desirable that rules better protect registration of domain names. as it is
410
. if the owner of a server located in Mexico. it should have to be sued under the laws and fora of that country as the server is located there. SUMMARY Mexico is not absent from the globalization process. however. Domain names have their own particularities. as if we were talking about the street name of a particular house.mx domain names.mx domain name with NIC MEXICO. office or building. it has adopted a passive attitude as other registers in the world. Unfair competition provisions may represent adequate legal tools to enforce the non-authorized use of domain names as trademarks. at the same time it would have to be taken into account that for qualifying for trademark protection. if domain names are to carry out trademark functions they need to comply with trademark law principles. and domain name as their addresses. which as far as trademarks is concerned. Domain names can serve as trademarks by the fact that they are used for accessing to websites that offer and advertise the sale of products or services. the domain name needs to be used in connection with the sale of products or the rendering of services. and allegedly starts infringing trademark rights.

we would tend to believe in principle. which laws shall apply.a broader concept that does not necessarily require the domain name to be used in connection with the selling of products or services. it should be the laws and forum of the place where this is located that would be applicable. that as defendant would be the owner of the server.
411
. However. The territorial aspect of domain name protection bears mention as it is hard to know where rights are being infringed and accordingly.

In the United States. The explosive growth of the internet has triggered the ongoing development of a huge variety of software programs used for a multiplicity of business methods and processes. While in the United States the software and business method exception has been a judicially-created exception to statutory subject matter. an invention must have a technical and tangible effect. IV Computer programs On the other hand. at a first glance it could be said that the IPL legal provisions and the interpretation thereof by IMPI with regard to business methods and computer programs are quite different from those in the United States. 96-1327 (Fed Cir July 23. it has been established by the Mexican Institute of Industrial Property (IMPI) as a non-written rule that in order to be patentable. the practice with respect to patentability of these types of inventions during recent years has shown that IMPI is in fact allowing patents in these fields of technology. Thus. Managing Intellectual Property. provided that the claimed subject matter fulfils the traditional criteria for patentability. in Mexico Article 19 of the Industrial Property Law (IPL) explicitly excludes methods for doing business and programs for computers from patentability considering that the same are not regarded as inventions: ARTICLE 19.THE IMPACT OF E-COMMERCE ON MEXICO'S IP LAWS By Luis C.. games or businesses and the mathematical methods. 1998) original case 927 F Supp 502. No. plans. the State Street (State Street Bank & Trust Co v Signature Financial Group Inc. For the purposes of this Law.
412
. Schmidt and Cesar Ramos Jr. 38 USPQ2d 1530 (D Mass 1996) decision has substantially modified the traditional approach towards business methods and software related inventions considering that such inventions should no longer be excluded in principle from patent protection. However. rules and methods to carry out mental acts. September 2000. the following shall not be deemed as inventions: III Schemes.

does not provide any exclusion of patentability other than those exclusions based on public order or morality. countries have been calling for new rules asserting copyright rights on the internet. Although principles. but if the claims recite the software and/or method of doing business on a communication network wherein steps include network transmission steps. The validity and scope of protection of computer-related inventions.
413
. the criteria adopted by IMPI for allowing these types of cases establish that the invention is patentable as long as the computer program or the business method is not claimed per se and that a technical. In other words. In any event. concrete and tangible effect is obtained by using the invention. as well as for plants and animals. it may be deduced that TRIPs does not provide any prohibition for patentability of software or business methods. by raising the most challenging and interesting questions and issues. Thus. it would be advisable to file patent applications in Mexico for important internet. and intermediaries and users of the web.Even though no case law or guidelines had been developed in Mexico in connection with the patentability of computer programs and business methods. inventive activity and industrial application requirements then the invention should be considered as patentable. therapeutic and surgical methods. or for diagnostic. financial or banking related inventions which comply with the novelty. inventive activity and industrial application requirements. on the one hand. ecommerce. including those resulting from the Berne Convention. as well as legal remedies for solving disputes produced by the conflicting interests of title-holders. have remained the same. Article 27 of the TRIPs agreement. business methods and e-commerce patents in Mexico are still to be tested before IMPI and the courts as no experience exists with patents granted for these fields of technology. as long as they fulfill the traditional requirements of patentability. if the claims merely recite the steps for conducting a business method the same will not be deemed as patentable. etc and the invention meets the novelty. Additionally. which defines the subject matter of patentable inventions. Copyright law The internet has also affected copyright law in various different forms.

the Mexican Law of 1996. These are not restricted to software only. which was adopted prior to the conclusion of the Diplomatic Conference held at WIPO’s headquarters in December 1996. the Mexican delegation participating at the discussions of WCT and WPPT played an active role in the negotiation and adoption of the above international treaties. As of May 18. As to technical protection systems. which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by the law” (emphasis added). WCT is now pending at Congress while WPPT was approved on March 1. at the time that the law was passed. independent from the more traditional notion of public performance. already had introduced certain of the provisions that would later become the standards of the treaties. 2000. and in fact. who seek access to information following all across the cyberspace. Likewise. The internet is no exception to this rule. The rule in the Mexican law has nonetheless a narrower scope than that of what would later become articles 11 and 12 of the WCT. Mexico has been an active promoter of copyright law and a true participant in the development of an international system of protection. but are rather regarded as a general norm imposing upon the “contracting parties” an obligation to “provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restricts acts in respect of their WORKS.on the other. 2000. the Mexican statute adopted a notion of “reproduction”. As a matter of fact. Finally. Mexico deposited the instruments of accession to the WCT and WPPT. which includes the temporary or ephemeral copying of protected works. a rule was included aiming at protecting the circumvention of codification mechanisms in computer programs. The Mexican legislator of 1996 was certainly unaware. the statute recognized a “transmission” right. that the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva would end up
414
. Accordingly. In line with the foregoing. from the more general concept of “communication to public”. the Mexican Law of 1996 inserted a “making available” right. as a legal tool to cope with the issue triggered by the use of works of authorship in a digital environment. as regarded by article 8 of the WCT.

although for a reduced term of five years. Mexican law has recognized protection of electronic and non-electronic databases on two different levels. having been inspired by the EU Directive on Database Protection. it can be seen that. protection being thus calculated for the regular term of life plus 75 years. there would be many compilations and collections of works that may qualify as databases. which by reason of the selection and disposal of their content represent “intellectual creations”. The law refers under this category to “non original” databases. and naturally on articles 10(2) of TRIPs and 2(5) of the Stockholm Act of the Berne Convention. would have imposed a high burden on internet service providers. Concerning the first level. as it may very
415
. Although perhaps not as far reaching as Inkasso program’s “Schöpfungshöle” or maybe even Feist. By having anticipated the final result at WIPO.dropping the drafting of a “reproduction” right in the WCT. the Mexican law still would offer “sui generis” type protection for databases not meeting the requirements needed for a “copyright” type of protection. leading thus to the possibility that accumulative protection may be possible. This may be a slightly unfortunate concept. Database protection The Mexican law of 1996 contemplates some provisions regarding the protection of databases. From the foregoing. and as a result. Indeed. which considers a lower standard of protection. the standard should at least be consistent with that required for computer programs. Mexican law indeed ruled on the ephemeral copying of works as a form of reproduction. By being considered as “compilations” the law is affording copyright protection to a data base if “original”. shall be protected as “compilations”. Pursuant to the second level. A principal rule states that collections of data or of “other material” perceptible by means of machine or any other form. databases which are “not original” shall be nevertheless protected. a system where limitations to copyright and safe harbour provisions counteract the controlling rights of copyright owners. under the foregoing criterion. as the idea of “ephemeral reproduction”. the law has imposed the higher standard of originality virtually equal as in copyright law. On the other hand. will now face the need to introduce for the sake of a proper balancing of equities.

No exceptions were considered and it also was not made clear whether a rental right would exist. Furthermore. The IPL’s trade secret protection is aimed at ensuring: (1) That the trade secret is not misappropriated by any person in a confidentiality relationship. and includes rights of extraction and reutilization conceptualized as reproduction. (3) That those to whom the trade secret is disclosed do not divulge the information or use it without the consent of the holder.well be thought that it admits any possible form by which data are put together. The notion of “non originality” would thus go beyond a “sweat of the brow” standard required by the EU Directive. modification. translation. electronic or magnetic media. the IPL establishes some limitations as to the subject matter of protection by stating that the confidential information of a trade secret must also refer to the nature.
416
. films or other tangible instruments. distribution and public communication of the protected database. without a minimum criterion of selection or arrangement. microfilms. (2) That the trade secret is not misappropriated by any person outside a confidentiality relationship. the IPL establishes additional limitations requiring that the above-referred “confidential information” must be embodies in documents. and to the means or manner of distribution or trade of products or the rendering of services. transportation. optical disks. characteristic or purposes of the products. kept confidentially by an individual or corporate entity. The bundle or rights conferred upon the two levels of databases is equal. which represent a competitive or economic advantage over third parties in the course of economic activities and with respect to which sufficient means or procedures to preserve confidentiality and restricted access have been adopted. Also. Trade secrets The ILP considers as a trade secret information having industrial application. production methods or processes.

trade secrets are not protected when appropriated by proper means such as reverse engineering or by independently creating. the LIP has established that trade secret theft will be pursued through criminal actions. Finally. but shall set forth the aspects they comprise as confidential.
417
. Accordingly. discovering or inventing them. Agreements under which technical knowledge. Notwithstanding this situation.The holder of a trade secret is entitled to use undisclosed material by himself or herself or to disclose it to third parties and confidentiality shall remain protected no matter whether such disclosure is made as a result of an agreement or a labour or professional relationship. criminal sanctions are available in case of non-authorized disclosure misappropriation “and unauthorized use” of the confidential information contained therein. technical assistance or supply of basic detailed engineering is transmitted may contain confidentiality clauses to protect the trade secrets they may encompass.

the US and Mexico total a population of 356 million inhabitants and an internal gross income of 6 million US currency (cy). no. on the one hand. Geographically speaking.5 There are thus very strong reasons why Mexico has looked north instead. This is mostly perceived. modernity and free trade Nowadays there is probably no country in the world not trying to modernize through protection of intellectual property rights. depending on the level of development achieved by each particular country. followed by the need of former socialist countries to start new forms of development based on free market principles. by the collapse of communism. Since 1983 Mexico has conducted a structural change of former industrial protectionist policies. To the south. as a result.6 With respect to Canada. 9. however. however. Structures. These historic changes and trends have led Mexico to find partners and alliances in the international community. whereas Mexico constitutes the US's third partner only. by slowly opening its borders to international trade. systems and forms can be diverse and vary. This dynamic process of development has also been apparent in the increase of exportations of finished products. Internal modernization rules and policies have been introduced3 and. by regionalism projects in Europe and the Pacific Rim and. 1993. commerce between Mexico and its neighbours to the north has increased significantly. Canada. The problem has been where to look. 4. Likewise. Mexico shares historic and cultural identity with practically every Latin American State. The US represents Mexico' s principal partner. there is not a large trade existing among these countries. after Canada and Japan. international competitiveness and economic development have been more perceptible. Vol. on the other hand.
Introduction Mexico. technology and investment. a
418
.4 The economic perspective of the world is also changing.COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA): WILL MEXICAN LAW REPRESENT A TRADE BARRIER? Computer Law & Practice.

‘outlining trade problems encountered in connection with new works of authorship.9 have been fundamental for the balancing of the interests of traders and intellectual property owners. as international multilateral conventions regulating trade. a particular member country that offers weak. the free trade agreement of January 1988 between Canada and the US has positively fostered commercial flux and investments by reducing tariff barriers. by eliminating non-tariff barriers and by implementing mechanisms for the solving of disputes. trademarks. audio and video works. led by the block known as the ‘group of ten’. Thus. they proposed the drafting of an anticounterfeiting code that would establish a comprehensive package of minimal standards of protection for copyrights. patents.10 Both GATT and the Treaty of Rome. One reason has been that both countries complement each other as regards diversity of climes and natural resources. seek a system in which unfair trade practices and anti-counterfeiting measures are effectively enforced.14 Industrialized countries have maintained that under a trade agreement like GATT. television programming and computer software’11 The industrialized countries spearheaded the move to include intellectual property rights on the Round's agenda. Moreover.stronger and more important commercial relationship has been developing of late.16 have opposed the code ‘and argue in
419
. trade dress. an active trade of manufactured goods can be added. Article XX(d) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)8 and Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome.12 The code should be in harmony with traditional conventions on industrial property13 and copyright. developing countries. including books. numerous submissions were brought to the parties’ attention. mask works and trade secrets’.15 On the other hand. Trade and intellectual property around the world Because one of its principal aims is the free movement of goods. periodicals.7 Lastly. at the GATT’s Uruguay Round trade discussions. inadequate and ineffective protection of intellectual property has to be considered a significant and growing non-tariff barrier to trade in goods and services’. Also. free trade would never develop properly if intellectual property rights are not protected.

19 As to international trade protection. the intellectual property talks have been stalled over the so-called ‘Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. After the Mexican War of Independence ended in 1821. in 1991 a new statute regulating patents and trademarks was implemented18 and amendments to the copyright law were introduced. and as explained above.favor of leaving these questions entirely to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). due to the fact that such standards are low and will remain so in the future.24 which is still in effect in
420
.23 The Constitution of 1917. especially in the field of intellectual property rights protection and enforcement. the Mexican system of intellectual property protection must offer an adequate level of protection to nationals and foreigners. developing countries are satisfied with the idea that the minimum standards in WIPO's conventions could continue to be internationally applied. which administers copyright and industrial property Conventions’17 In summary. The Mexican Copyright Law has evolved from the civil law system adopted by that country as a consequence of the 16th Century Spanish Conquest. Mexico looking forward to NAFTA Mexico is conscious that in order to reach the status of ‘developed country’ much has to be done. in order to be compatible with the foregoing general principles. Mexico fully supports GATT's principles. and the free flow of new foreign technologies and capital into the country. in the field of intellectual property. Thus. Therefore. including Trade in Counterfeiting Goods (TRIPS)’. Steps have been taken already in this regard. including application of Article XX(d) of said treaty. Mexico expects that NAFTA will be compatible with GATT20 and.21 In fact.22 which has now been backed by Mexico. Accordingly. they will continue to oppose the industrialized countries' attempt to use GATT as a vehicle to increase minimum standards of protection and establish new specific rules on enforcement and dispute settlement. Mexico also seeks adequate protection for Mexican inventors and authors. Let us now analyze the system and determine whether or not it does. a series of constitutions followed which recognized among other basic rights the need to properly protect authors and inventors with respect to their creations.

Mexican copyright law requires that the work be embodied in a tangible medium of expression. trusts and cartels became practices against the Constitution itself except.25 limited in time. In keeping with this. strongly encourages protection of the author's personality. complete.38 the expression/idea dichotomy39 and fair use.Mexico. and fixation of the author's creation.32 followed by the Federal Copyright Laws of 195633 and 1963 (this latter law still being in effect). various copyright laws have been enacted. intellectual creation or expression of human sensibility. A specific law was implemented in 1946. monopolies.41 will be granted full protection under Mexican copyright law. talent and ingenuity. for those ‘privileges’ constituting the exclusive rights of authors and inventors.28 but then the civil codes of 1870. unitary and representing or meaning something. a situation which is reflected in the concrete application of basic copyright principles such as originality.40 The work of authorship A work is the personal. among others. as exclusive rights or ‘privileges’. A creation meeting the above criteria. A more complete and systematic approach for the regulation of copyrights was introduced with the Federal Copyright Law of 1947. It is indeed the act of creation. conferred upon the authors and artists with respect to the reproduction of their works and to persons inventing or improving upon inventions for the exclusive use of their inventions. in other words. like most other countries with a legal system derived from Roman law.42
421
.29 188430 and 192831 undertook the regulation of copyright. as a result of the free market economic principles set by the 1917 Constitution.27 Since Mexico became independent. viewed patents and copyrights as permitted monopolies or. that is to say it is an individual creation. in a material and durable form that leads to copyright protection.35 The flesh and blood person called the ‘author’36 — or 'authors' in the case of collective works37 — is the main object of protection. Likewise. Mexico.26 Accordingly.34 Principles of Mexican copyright law The author Mexican copyright law is definitively oriented towards the author's rights.

of which Mexican law has indirectly recognized some. and registration only recognizes or confirms such previously constituted rights.49 Just as in the US and other jurisdictions. protection of a work arises out of the very act of creation.51 public performance and display. they cannot be pledged and they never prescribe. moral rights constitute the dividing line between intellectual property rights and actual property/properties. distribution.44 According to Mexican copyright doctrine. it is not possible for the author to renounce his or her moral rights. who holds them permanently and perpetually. Notwithstanding the foregoing. Berne Convention standards52 were introduced into Article 8 of the 1963 Copyright Law. They cannot be transferred. namely moral and patrimonial rights.53 Thus. or by the assignee or copyright owner in the case of a 'work-for-hire' relationship. registration represents prima facie evidence of copyright ownership. and its duration is temporary. Formalities Finally.However. in case
422
. patrimonial rights contemplated by Mexican law can be divided into the five well-known categories of reproduction. Moral rights are the purest manifestation of the author's personality in copyright.50 control of derivative works. licensed or in any other way disposed of by the author.46 but expressly has recognized only the paternity right47 and the integrity right.45 There are various categories of moral rights. Accordingly. As mentioned before. which states that there is no need to register a work in order to protect it.43 The rights Mexican copyright law states that there are two fundamental types of rights. sold or assigned because they are both inherent and integral to the author. Mexican copyright law subscribes to the principle of absence of formalities as to registration and use of copyright notice of the Interamerican Conventions and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. patrimonial rights can be transferred. Also. during and after his or her life.48 On the other hand. it will always be the intangible element — human creation— that will be protected and not the medium or corpus mechanism in which it is embodied.

modification or extinction of copyrights have to be recorded.63 On 8 October 1984 the so-called ‘Acuerdo 114 of the Public Education Secretariat’ was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation.59 However. Otherwise. in the case of enforcement.of a dispute over rights.62 It should be understood that only agreements representing transfer. It is not clear why the government chose to regulate software through an administrative resolution and not through
423
. work-for-hire agreements do not fall within any of the cited categories.54 or if not nationals of Union countries their works have been published55 in one country of the Union. or they have permanent residence in one of them.61 Regarding recordation of agreements. the Interamerican Convention confers protection to member State authors and foreigners domiciled in member States. a Mexican court would most likely recognize applications of the principle of absence of formalities to all foreign works whose authors are nationals of Berne Convention or Interamerican Convention countries. This resolution. but not to nationals of countries with which Mexico has only Universal Copyright Convention relationships or no reciprocity relationships at all. the intention of the contracting parties governs copyright relationships between authors and publishers. the publisher will be liable for the sanctions prescribed by the law. recordation is not mandatory for agreements entered into by two publishers or other corporations with no participation of the authors. deposit or formalities. Also. transmitting.56 Similarly. there are no restrictions imposed by the law to scrutinise and approve recordation of agreements.60 but this will not result in Ioss of copyright. By application of the Berne Convention.58 The principle of absence of formalities also covers the copyright notice requirements. the principle of absence of formalities extends to foreign authors who are nationals of Union countries. manifested the first intention of the Mexican government to recognize protection of computer programs. although not binding as a statute of Congress. Mexican copyright law states that if proper notice is not displayed in a visible place. encumbering or extinguishing patrimonial copyrights shall produce effects after they are recorded with the Copyright Office. the law provides that those entered into by authors modifying. the burden of proof would be borne by the contesting party. without registration.57 Therefore.

however. This curious situation endured for approximately seven years. which were returned to him or her with corresponding annotations. As a result. the applicant was entitled to file samples of the program in any known tangible form of expression. Copyright protection and registration67 thus became available in order to avoid infringement by unauthorized third parties. We believe that Mexico just followed what WIP0 65 and other countries66 had done at that time.68 A brief description of the computer program and a listing of its directory were required as well. Registration required the filing of the first ten and last ten pages of said object code. If these media were different from printed paper. ‘Acuerdo 114’ contains a provision stating that computer programs were deemed to be works of authorship under the terms of the Federal Copyright Law.enactment of a statute.70 Amendments of 1991 With the passage of time the 1963 law needed to be reformed as it was increasingly unable to cope efficiently with the complexity of legal problems in the software industry. the Copyright Office started granting registrations for operating systems and applications programs presented either in source code or object code. source code or both.69 Finally. Federal Copyright Law of 1963 The ' Acuerdo' was considered for a long time as the guiding principle of computer program copyright protection. There is also no legislative history indicating why the Mexican government decided to protect computer programs through copyright law and not through patent law. the applicant was required to file the first ten and last ten pages in question. violations of these types of works having unique characteristics. Of the issues that emerged from the use and commercialization of software. the Copyright Law of 1963 was deemed applicable as providing the general framework of protection of these types of works. growing piracy bears first
424
. These particular characteristics resulted from the contents of the program itself as well as the tangible medium in which they are embodied. Registration was thus accepted for computer programs under a rationale akin to the role of doubt (applicant’s good faith would be presumed without affecting third parties' rights).

more effective and meaningful enforcement procedures were implemented. As mentioned. There was practically no understanding in Mexico of the rights that computer program authors and publishers had with respect to their works of authorship. ANIPCO therefore proposed that moral rights with respect to computer software could be waived. published a document proposing a series of amendments. It also raised the possibility of restricting reproduction to a single back-up copy of an original program.mention. among other matters. Finally. the 'Asociación Nacional de la Industria para Programas de Computadoras'. suggested the recognition of computer programs as a new category. and regulations to the law should be promulgated soon. Anticipating NAFTA. ANIPCO's voice was heard by Mexico's Congress and most of its proposals were incorporated into the Copyright Law. a national organization better known as ‘ANIPCO’. This situation creates a conflict due to the fact that it is difficult to determine the participation of each programmer.72 Computer software differs from other classes of works in that it manifests problems with respect to moral rights. independent of the more traditional types of works. However. Accordingly. one may not even know about another programmer's contributions. including manuals and non-literal elements. and with the goal of raising the standards of protection to a level that compares favourably with that of other countries. Furthermore. The 1991 Amendment73 intended to improve significantly copyright protection for computer programs in Mexico. the amendments met with
425
. ANIPCO's recommendation included an increase in penal and economic sanctions for the non-authorized reproduction of programs. ANIPCO suggested that a system should be implemented that restricts access to software registration records filed at the Copyright Office without the express consent of the copyright owner. granted not to the author but to the publisher. ‘Acuerdo 114’ had fallen behind actual needs and trends. The ANIPCO memorandum. Likewise. it was difficult to know the obligations of the public relating to the reproduction of the programs.71 which some years later became the foundation of the 1991 Copyright Law amendments. and duration of the protection to life plus 30 years. in as much as development of programs is frequently undertaken by groups of 20 or 30 programmers or even more. on 30 October 1985.

plots. the prefatory statement or legislative history of Article 132(III) states that it should be borne in mind that configuration of software ‘constitutes the essence thereof’83 and public information on the subject should be restricted. Otherwise. In fact. 132(II) and 135(III) were modified or augmented.76 Although not intended by the drafters of the amendments.80 Nonetheless. without having to mention it expressly in the law. to all of the listed categories of works. without distinction. however. However. access to this type of work by the public would be tantamount to disclosing its creative features.
and
foreign
criticism.82 Article 132(III) incorporates ANIPCO's proposal by establishing an exception to third parties' access to records filed with the Copyright Office relating to computer programs. Likewise. new changes to the law will surely come up in the future. such provision is unclear as to whether ‘back-up’ copy means the one loaded onto the hard disk of a computer.81 As regards adaptation of programs. 18(f). anyone may produce derivative works and use them for personal purposes.both national enactment. plans and drafts of other works. the idea of establishing some degree of differentiation between this type of works and others of more traditional character is proper in a country in which the author's rights system prevails. Initially computer programs were considered expressly to be a separate category of works of authorship. as a result of the pressure that NAFTA's US negotiating team has put on the Mexican government to classify computer programs as literary works. as with any other type of literary or artistic works. sketches. its nonliteral elements78 are protected in the same manner as the outlines. Articles 7(j).77 Article 7 of the Copyright Law grants equal protection.
before74
and
after75
their
To reiterate. This was made with the primary purpose of protecting trade secrets embodied in the programs. or whether the original floppy disk would become the back-up copy once it is loaded onto a hard disk. The back-up copy provision of Article 18(f) of the Copyright Law79 was inspired by Article 117 of the US Copyright Act.84
426
. in accordance with the Copyright Law the publication or public use of the adaptation requires the prior authorization of the copyright owner.

but also to the indirect benefit or advantage. have been problems in Mexico in recent years.91 Moreover. intends to collect jointly its members' royalties deriving from the use of software. according to the Copyright Law. collecting societies in Mexico are entitled to collect royalties arising from the public performance of works of authorship without the express authorization of the author.85 Also.86 The 1991 Amendments to the Copyright Law introduced a criminal penalty of up to six years in prison and significant fines for the unauthorized reproduction of computer programs for the purpose of gain. which would not necessarily require pecuniary gain. Consequently. if no express power of representation is granted by the author. effective civil and criminal remedies are needed as well. The problem is twofold. Therefore. using the terminology employed in the music
427
.87. However.90 The creation of the society has surprised more than one commentator. First. enforcement of rights. in addition to a strong copyright law protecting computer programs. rights to collect royalties derived from publication of software (or mechanical rights.88 This newly introduced criminal remedy has been recently tested by the Business Software Alliance (BSA) 89 and much success is expected in the near future.Finally. in addition to the application of the Federal Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure. intellectual property infringement and counterfeiting. This 'for purpose of gain' feature has been a bone of contention. this chapter of the Copyright Law authorizes civil judges and criminal prosecutors to seize illegal copies. The Copyright Law contains a chapter prescribing remedies and sanctions. refers not only to the profit directly obtained from the sale or exploitation of a certain good. such as border controls and stringent anticounterfeiting measures.92 Secondly. or its Spanish translation 'lucro'. among other purposes set by the law. however. both of locally manufactured and imported products. Both criminal and civil damages actions are contemplated. ‘gain’. the existence of adequate and effective means by which intellectual property owners can enforce their rights is an important free trade agreement issue that confronts Mexico. collecting societies are not authorized to collect royalties arising from the reproduction and distribution (publication) of copies of the program. Software collecting societies On 27 February 1992 the Copyright Office registered a collecting (or author's) society which.

plots. sequence and organization' (SSO).. to all categories of works and the SSO and displays of computer programs are no exception.
428
. from a copyright law point of view software development in all its phases can be regarded as a process of work completion which eventually aims at the production of an operational computer program’.industry). employers and contracting parties that purchase software development services. It is not clear whether this language is wide enough to apply not only to direct reproduction of the program.97 However.94 'Look and feel' and user interface issues also have not been explored. rough drafts. as most computer programs are produced under work-forhire relationships. have not been addressed by either the Copyright Law or by the courts. there must be a dividing line between such protected expression and the unprotected idea or overall purpose of the program.e. But would the non-literal aspects of the program be protected in accordance with Mexican law? These uncharted waters lying between idea and expression. but also to infringement of non-literal features. outlines. there is no doubt that literal codes of computer programs are protected in Mexico as forming part of the final product ready for use by a machine. rather than ‘authors’.93 Non-literal elements From the above.96 As mentioned. are frequently the rightful owners of such collection rights. On the other hand. the Copyright Law of Mexico should protect non-literal features of programs on a case-by-case basis if they form part of the program's expression and not the idea. Notwithstanding this situation. Partial or total copying of these features leads to copyright infringement. Furthermore. the Mexican Copyright Law grants protection to sketches. identified or even utilized in the final product (i. especially of criminal jurisdiction.95 Although not all transitions between the several stages of program development are fixed. are vested only in the author or his authorized representative. would enforce such rights in an action grounded in the unauthorized copying of programs. it remains to be seen whether a Mexican court. constituting the program's ‘structure. etc. flow charts).

while in France the Crown began to control the press.103 The fundamentals of the French approach are highlighted by the emphasis given to moral rights (theory of personality).104
429
. in England the Stationers Company gained control as the Crown invested it with extraordinary powers to print. because the Mexican Copyright Law extends protection to artistic and literary expressions which are the result of sensibility and talent rather than products of ‘sweat of the brow’.98 There is also no specific provision in the Law that refers to data base protection. search and seize when the writings were not ‘licensed’ by official censors.101 Later. it will be protected regardless of whether it is embodied in electronic or non-electronic media. there are common roots to both Anglo-American and Continental European (and Latin American) copyright systems in the censorship of the press during the 15th Century and the monopolistic privileges granted by sovereigns. but compilations are protectable if there is originality as to selection.99 facts and collections thereof are not the subject matter of protection. Free trade and computer software: two systems vis-á-vis Evolution of author's right and copyright systems Copyright law evolved differently in England from Continental Europe. Nevertheless.102 As a result of the increase in piracy throughout Europe due to the monopolistic press. the church and universities. This evolution led these two countries to take different courses with regard to copyright protection of authors and their works. in Mexico as in the US. the focus has been on the control afforded by copyright over initial disclosure of works (common law theory of privacy). On the other hand. arrangement and co-ordination of such facts.100 Under the above standards. a struggle arose and the right to control publication reverted to the author in France and remained with the Stationers Company in England. whereas in England and later in the US.Databases It is also unclear whether databases are protected by copyright. However. a simple list of names in alphabetical order would probably not be protected. if the compilation meets a certain threshold of originality.

the definition of author and the style in which legislators fashion rights. a new international treaty was enacted with the purpose to tie non Berne countries. to other countries both inside and outside the Berne Union.110 Originality is a very sensitive issue. The Directive represents an attempt to harmonise copyright laws in the European Community. of which the Berne Convention is considered the most important.108 However. but not to tie Berne countries to each other.105 Moral rights were also strongly encouraged by Berne. Later. two confrontations First confrontation: the formation of the international network of treaties Internationalization of copyright was first realized when works produced within one country began to reach other countries. especially some of those in countries whose legal systems derive from Roman law. Whereas the copyright system presupposes ‘independent Creation’ and ‘modest quantum of creativity’ under the theory that the work owes its origin to the author—
430
. During the 19th Century many such agreements were reached. a conflict resulted.109 is a good example of a confrontation between the two legal approaches to protecting authors. Nevertheless. also known as the 'Green Paper'. differently conceived by the copyright and the author's rights systems. this opinion is not shared by other authors. which resulted in rejection by certain of the 'copyright system' countries. International agreements were resorted to resolve trade conflicts in Europe and the Americas. In fact.Two different systems.107 Second confrontation: EC Directive on Software Protection Professor Gellor has stated that the only real differences between copyright and author's rights systems are the term of duration of rights. the US did not join the Berne Convention until 1988. 106 Almost 60 years after the formation of the so-called Berne Union. Its fundamentals were national treatment and absence of formalities under a system of minimum rights to be complied with and fostered among the subscribing parties. This was due in part to piracy triggered as a consequence of the monopolistic practices of the Crown and publishing companies seeking to control the press. such as the US at the time. as fundamental principles like originality were given an 'Anglo-Saxon' interpretation. these agreements were superseded by multilateral treaties. The EC Directive on Software Protection.

e. and it protects the expression of ideas but not the ideas themselves. In essence. In other words. but an individual effort can be made by any person without necessarily producing a work of authorship. computer programs are ruled by functionality.who can be either a natural or a collective person — the author's rights system highlights a 'personal creation' standard as an arbitrary manifestation of the personality of the author— always a flesh and blood person — or what is known as the imprint of the author's persona'. it does not limit independent creation as does patent law. which leads to a balanced solution between inadequate and excess protection. The point of citing these two
431
.). If a work is considered the expression of the author's personality it is simply unthinkable that the same works could be repeated. In Germany the Federal Supreme Tribunal in Inkassoprogramm y Entscheidung113 used the criterion of ‘Durchschnittgestalter’.111 The ‘Roman’ countries of the EC have had difficulty dealing with such ideas. With other types of works. On the other hand. under the Latin-Germanic approach. a spreadsheet. nonliteral elements are only protected if they finally lead to the creation of the program. in as much as they are oriented to accomplishing a utilitarian result (i. etc. finally leading to a ‘statistic originality’ or objective novelty of patent law.114 Likewise. as authors' expressions are arbitrary and unique in nature.112 Germany and France have tried unsuccessfully to adapt the Anglo-Saxon view of originality into their own systems. underlying elements are protected independently of the work itself. probably equivalent to the AngloSaxon standard of individual functionality. in the Pachot case the French Court of Cassation115 applied the ‘individual effort’ criterion. The Green Paper adopted copyright protection for computer programs because this approach has shown the capacity to adapt to new technologies. computer programs differ from other works in that non-literal elements of the computer program are so linked to the program itself that they are only protected if they are essential to the program's creation. developing a word processing program. In addition. the traditional 'work' has no particular utilitarian objective. Certain countries find it virtually impossible to fit the 'independent creation' standard within an author's rights system.

Processes or products for industrial applications are included among inventions. the result of an inventive activity and susceptible to industrial application. now transporting the issue to North America. NAFTA will surely bring up a third confrontation.cases is that none of the aforementioned ideas were applicable in Germany and France. This expectation has started to manifest as the 1991 Amendments have granted a different treatment to computer programs with respect to the rest of the copyrightable works.122 10 February 1976123 and the recent Law for the Promotion and Protection of Industrial Property (LPPIP) of 27 June 1991. is considered to be an invention. both of whom had a hard time trying to fit them into their national systems (in which an original work is necessarily linked to the persona of its author).118 Since then.121 31 December 1942. The first statute to regulate patents in Mexico was implemented on 7 May 1832.124 Every human creation that allows matter or energy existing in nature to be transformed. through the immediate satisfaction of a specific need.117 The situation as explained above has shown the different directions taken by the countries subscribing to the Roman law standpoint and the countries following the Anglo-Saxon view. further legislative Acts were enacted on 7 June 1890. as long as software remains protected by copyright. The question here is which of the countries involved will have to modify its copyright system? For many reasons everything seems to indicate that Mexico will be the one having to finally adapt Anglo-Saxon formulae into its own very well-grounded system. Thus. EC Continental European countries have finally decided to follow originality based on 'personality rights' for all literary and artistic works of authorship and to apply originality standards based on 'independent creation' and ‘modest quantum of creativity' to computer programs.125
432
.119 25 August 1903. Principles of Mexican patent law Mexican patent law recognizes as patentable inventions that are novel. at least as regards computer software protection. it will be a constant conflict to fit it within this subject 's framework.116 As a result. Mexican Copyright Law principles will suffer the same consequences as those experienced by the laws of many other Roman law system countries. for exploitation by man.120 27 July 1928.

The FreemanWalter-Abele test134 is compatible with the aforementioned provision of Mexican patent law. so-called transformation industries. mining.138
433
.127 Furthermore. as the case may be. The law defines it as the possibility that any product or process will be made or used. it is not clear why the Mexican Federal Congress expressly excluded computer software as an invention. The concept of novelty is absolute in as much as there is no limitation in applying the principle. This situation not only appears to be incorrect. is one providing a list of items not deemed as inventions. nor known to others prior to the date that the patent application is filed. for these hybrids. by exploitation or by any other means of dissemination or information. On the other hand. algorithms should be protectable if claimed for a specific purpose or directed to a specific application.135 However. the results of which are not apparent from the state of the art to a person with technical knowledge in that field. in industry. in which theoretical or scientific principles131 and computer software132 are included.129 The third requirement of patentability turns on the industrial application of the invention. it is likely that patents would only protect a small portion of the innovation. but it contradicts the conclusions that have been reached about the patentability of algorithms when directed to specific purposes. and that "powerful reproduction rights and long term of protection [of copyright] implemented cultural policies that are largely irrelevant to the needs of a competitive market". ranching. fishing. Computer software is a complex technology or 'legal hybrid'.137 'However.136 with specific features that are in part copyrightable and in part patentable.130 Computer software not classified as inventions Among the basic provisions that delineate patent law in Mexico's LPPIP.133 The nonpatentability of theoretical or scientific principles is a clear and justifiable position and includes algorithms in the abstract. the invention will not be deemed novel if it has become public through oral or written description.126 It means anything not found in the state of the art. whether domestic or foreign. the law defines 'inventive activity' as a creative process. construction and all types of services.128 The foregoing definition is somewhat equivalent to the non obviousness principle in the US Patent Act. including agriculture.Novelty' under Mexican law is interpreted narrowly as something different from that which preceded it.

including its layers.
434
.139 It is unlikely that copyright protection would be available for circuit layouts as the structure of the layers. it is unfortunate that the existence of such a provision under the LPPIP could not only bar protection for programs embodied in computer related technology. but the functional aspects of the program and the algorithm specifically applied as well. therefore. Mexican copyright law and practice disfavours the protection objects which are primarily functional (although they may have some artistic merit). is patent law. as in most countries in the world. the risk that this type of protection would fail is high. it could also prevent development of creativeness in this industry. Also. patent prosecution is more costly and time consuming than copyrights. unlike other countries. Under patent law the novelty. This does not mean that patent protection represents the best protection possible. although they may reflect some originality and contain patterns that probably manifest some creativity as photographs. The only protection that remains available for semiconductor chip products. inventiveness and industrial application standards. non-obviousness and industrial application standards would be applicable. as long as they comply with novelty. Circuit layouts Mexico has not yet implemented any special or sui generis legislation regulating circuit layouts. The inventive portions of computer programs should represent patentable subject matter. are too functional as to qualify for this type of protection. because while patent protection offers a more complete protection to inventions in general than would a sui generis ‘mask work’ Like legislation or even copyright legislation. copyright protection would only extend to those chips produced as photographs. not every chip topography is produced as a photographic mask and. The definition of invention in the patent law is broad enough to encompass circuit layouts embodied in semiconductor chips. Furthermore.Accordingly. However.

whole attitude is oriented towards keeping such information private. Since the LPPIP was implemented it has been discussed whether the words 'production methods or processes' are wide enough to include not only production activities but repair and maintenance activities as well. optical disks. Accordingly. the LPPIP established additional limitations requiring that the aforementioned ‘confidential information’ has to be embodied in documents. when the LPPIP was implemented and new rules were introduced in this field.142 Also. and comprises 'trade' or `commercial' secrets as well. Notwithstanding such term is narrow. it has a much broader legal meaning than mere secrets relating to manufacturing techniques and industrial processes. production methods or processes.
435
. Both industrial and commercial secrets are recognized by the LPPIP as covering valuable information that is protected due to its confidential character. it employed the term 'industrial secret' to refer to what is known in the US as 'trade secret'. the LPPIP has established some limitations as to the subject matter of protection. the LPPIP does not require absolute secrecy. microfilms. the LPPIP considers as a trade secret information having industrial application.143 Furthermore.144 The information subject to confidentiality needs to meet particular standards. by stating that the confidential information of a trade secret must also refer to the nature. and to the means or manner of distribution or trade of products or the rendering of services. which represents a competitive or economic advantage over third parties in the course of economic activities and with respect to which sufficient means or procedures to preserve confidentiality and restricted access have been adopted.Trade secrets Trade secrets and Mexican industrial property law For a long time trade secrets were protected and sanctioned by the Criminal Code140 and were considered to be of State jurisdiction until recently. films or any other tangible instruments. kept confidentially by an individual or corporate entity. the LPPIP created a whole new title141 in which. characteristics or purposes of the products. Firstly. Also. electronic or magnetic media. it has to be undisclosed matter known to an individual or corporate entity. In line with the above. first of all.

discovering or inventing them. and (c) those to whom the trade secret is disclosed do not divulge the information or use it without consent of the holder. shall be not considered as a trade secret. (b) the trade secret is not misappropriated by any person outside a confidentiality relationship. and confidentiality shall remain protected no matter if such disclosure is made as a result of an agreement145 or a labour or professional relationship. but shall set forth the aspects they comprise as confidential. the LPPIP has established that trade secret theft will be pursued through criminal actions. LPPIP’s trade secret protection is aimed at ensuring that: (a) the trade secret is not misappropriated by any person in a confidentiality relationship. criminal sanctions are available in cases of non-authorized disclosure. when it is submitted for the purposes of obtaining licenses. information in the public domain. the definition of the LPPIP provides that the holder of the trade secret needs to adopt sufficient means or procedures to preserve its confidentiality and restrict third parties' access to the information. registrations or similar items. authorizations. or which has to be disclosed by virtue of the law or by a court order. the information submitted to any governmental authority by a person possessing the same as a trade secret will not be deemed to fall into the public domain or be disclosed by virtue of the law.in this respect.146 Agreements under which technical knowledge. permits. Finally.
436
. which is obvious to a person with technical knowledge in the field. Accordingly. In this respect. The holder of a trade secret is entitled to use undisclosed material himself or herself or to disclose it to third parties. Likewise.150 Notwithstanding this situation. technical assistance or supply of basic detailed engineering is transmitted may contain confidentiality clauses to protect the trade secrets they may encompass. trade secrets are not protected when appropriated by proper means such as reverse engineering or by independently creating.147 misappropriation148 and unauthorized use149 of the confidential information contained therein.

'156 Users of programs are sometimes able to understand the design and structure of a program by decompiling' it. This can help to keep secret those elements which give programs a competitive advantage. It is extremely portable and is easily misused or misappropriated. these three types of improper conduct have been found in relationships of confidentiality. 'Machine language programs do not have to be assembled or compiled by the user. disclosure and decompiling of information contained in a program. In addition.157 In order to achieve this result. Programs are typically distributed in machine language form in Mexico as well as in the US. they need to translate the program in object code or machine
437
. distribution in machine language form has the side effect that it is difficult for others to look at the program code and understand how the program works. such as employeremployee. and protect them against unauthorized use and disclosure and misappropriation in terms of the LPPIP.151 Computer programs are processes for processing information automatically by a machine and are thus compatible with industrial processes that have been employing trade secrets status for years.153 Copyright law protects all those steps and.154 however. according to Mexican trade secret law.155 An issue has arisen when the program is distributed to the public. In this respect commentators have sustained that 'Computer software possesses characteristics which make it a unique form of intellectual property. Expensive programs.Trade secret protection applied to computer software Nothing has been said with regard to the applicability of trade secret law to unauthorized use. As mentioned. appropriation.152 The structure of programs is comprised of a series of levels and stages until they reach a machine readable form. they are ready to be loaded into the computer and executed. the LPPIP does not apply to discovery by innocent means and reverse engineering. where its design could easily be discovered by third parties with no link to the secret holder. can be copied for a small fraction of the development costs’. it should cover extensively all those undisclosed features of the program of which secrecy measures have been taken by its holder. requiring valuable time and expertise.

there are other issues of which a software producer has to take care. the license is wrapped or packaged but any way visible on the exterior of the bag or box serving as container.language program into a source code or high level language and.159 Lastly. decompiling. This is made mostly through a legal mechanism called ' shrinkwrap licence'. disassemble and copy the program. translation of works presupposes the production of a derivative work. with many particularities. as Mexican civil law requires that an adhesion contract is represented in a written form and is properly accepted by the contracting parties (this is principally through the signing of the corresponding agreement). which in Mexico is a kind of adhesion contract. Shrink wrap licenses Producers have taken additional steps and measures against decompilation of their programs by licensing them to customers under an obligation of confidence or non-disclosure. but such type of works cannot be used or exploited without the consent of the original work’s copyright owner. the program's user is allowed to decompile the program but will be only entitled to use or reproduce the idea and public domain aspects circumscribing such program158 and. Therefore. restricting the copying. due to the fact that nobody can be deprived from creating a work of authorship from an original underlying one. The principal clauses of the agreement relate to limitations on behalf of the user to decompile. according to copyright principles. non-authorized use and disclosure and misappropriation of the licensed programs. In Mexico enforceability of shrink wrap licenses could represent an issue in the future (and not precisely with regard to copying limitations as they are supported by the law itself). As its name indicates. The problem is rather oriented towards decompilation and disassembly of the program. despite what has been mentioned above. Mexican and foreign software producers are recommended to establish non-disclosure measures through confidentiality agreements.
438
. disassembling. it would represent a copyright infringement. The user will accept the license’s terms and conditions if he or she opens the wrapper. considering that a contract limitation of that kind could lead to illegality problems. In addition. if the expression is copied. In Mexico everyone is free to create derivative works.

This provision should allow in the future for the proposition that algorithms as applied to a particular function and software related inventions are duly protected. Finally. An environment of openness has surrounded free trade agreement negotiations with its neighbours to the north. The LPPIP will require amendment so that the restriction imposed on the patentability of software is eliminated. Software is exploited exclusively through publishing and private use and there is thus no reason why a software collecting society should exist. which have brought renovation and a higher level of economical development. as regards copyright. Copyright law fundamentals will be constantly challenged. confidentiality agreements. but there is still much to do to reach a higher standard of protection and rights enforceability as in other developed countries. Accordingly.Conclusions Mexico has been facing changing times for almost one decade and new international trade. tested and interpreted. as has happened lately in Europe. including "shrink wrap" licenses are enforceable. and most probably they will need significant arrangements in order to cover computer software sharing characteristics with other type of creations. in addition to trade secret protection against any attempt by third parties to obtain them by improper means. as long as software remains protected by this branch of intellectual property law. courts and governmental authorities will have to bear in mind that protection offered by the law extends to non-literal portions of computer programs and databases and that criminal provisions should consider plagiarism as a form of reproduction. investment and intellectual property policies have been introduced. Sui generis protection for circuit layouts is definitely needed as well. but very different in nature. In the field of computer software law. without risks of illegality. they are encouraged to apply to computer software the same type and level of protection that copyright laws grant to the rest of the works of authorship. Copyright and industrial property laws have improved significantly in recent times.
439
. as to trade secrets. Also. if these organizations are entitled by law to collect royalties deriving from the public performance of works. Mexico will have to be prepared and deal with new complex issues which have been testing other countries' intellectual property laws. authorities should also keep in mind that they extend to those features of computer software which the publisher decides to maintain under secrecy and that accordingly.

A. Canada was considered number 5 among Mexican commercial partners. the practical result has actually been highly elevated levels of protectionism. The author wishes to express his gratitude to Richard E. technology transfer. 1993.S. although in 1980 the Latin American Integration Association (ALADI) was created. 5." 6. at 5. 4. Computer Software Law. Bachelor of Law. forestall investment. Petroleum was Mexico’s most demanded item during the seventies and first years of the eighties. "Las Relaciones Comerciales de México con el Mundo. Pursuant to trade agreements between Canada and Mexico. 2. agriculture and livestock. As to trade agreements. 70% of Mexican exports were sent to the U. were manufactured products. Programa Nacional de Modernizacion Industrial y del Comercio Exterior [The National Program of Industrial and Foreign Trade Modernization]. for his assistance in reviewing this exercise and to William O. "Organización de los Trabajos Preparatorios del Tratado de Libre Comercio con Norteamérica" [hereinafter Organización de los Trabajos]. Trade with Latin American countries represents only 4% of Mexican foreign trade. This changed later and in 1987. More recently. to $17 billion USD in 1990. during the eighties many bilateral agreements were negotiated in order to eliminate obstacles in some concrete areas. "Las Relaciones Comerciales de México con el Mundo". 3. Esq. automobile. achievement of development through the fostering of technology transfer and intellectual property. tariff and non-tariff impositions still exist between the two countries. however. Olivares & Cia. Hennessey. However. Esq. internal market solidification and promotion of exportations. tariffs and general preference systems. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico and Master of Intellectual Property. and 50% of Mexican imports ended up there. including regional tariff preference measures. Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial 21 (1992). Neff.6. for the help in collecting material relating to U. Franklin Pierce Law Center. In 1987 Mexico was already Canada’s 9th purveyor and represented its 15th market. (c) Luis C. Counsel to the Business Software Alliance In Mexico. Jaime Serra Puche. 7. assembly plants. Non-petroleum products exports increased from $5 billion USD in 1982.. Schmidt.S. Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial 5 (1992). export of manufactured and agricultural products helped to diversify the existing trade. Supra note 4. Id. 1990 and published by Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial. before 1990 they had subscribed to some general agreements on trade and industrial and energetic cooperation. Mexico. In 1989 they signed an agreement related to trade and investment. at 6-11.1. 8. has set premises for industrial and trade development looking forward to the internationalization and privatization of the economy. with the purpose of establishing an area of economic advantage.A. mining..10. economic deregulation. fostering cooperation and understanding in some areas such as textiles. On the other hand. more than 70% of the total exports to the U.S. Conference given on April 18. "Contracting Parties to the original Agreement decided to place intellectual property rights on the list of subjects that article XX(d) excepted from the 440
. p. During the latter part of the 19th Century. fishing. as compared with 2% prevailing eight years ago. Mexico City.

6. Wagner supra note 11. Intellectual Property In International Trade: Opportunities and Risks of a GATT Connection. Brazil. intellectual property being the fifth. Published by the International Publishers Association and the International Group of Scientific. 20. June 2. Autumn 1987. Whilst in developed countries there is a position toward worldwide implementation of effective rules combating the non-authorized use or exploitation of intellectual property rights. providing for a proper enforcement system. 1883. July 14. 12. And the ability to attract the capital necessary to support such creativity depends increasingly on the availability of a global market in which the creator can market his products. 1967. Decree of Amendments and Additions of the Federal Law of Copyright. 1991). supra note 4. 1934. "The investment required for the creation." 16. 1934. there has been a longstanding battle between developed and developing countries regarding protection of intellectual property rights. at 6. "Organización de los Trabajos". Canadá y Estados 441
. Lack of adequate protection deprives investors of the export markets needed to recoup their costs. 17. including the protection of industrial and commercial property. December 14. The Hague. Washington. The foregoing has arisen from the lacunae existing in the Great International Conventions. Reichman. 1967. Id. "Bases de la Negociación del Tratado de Libre Comercio entre México. 18. October 31. No. Copyright and Related Rights in the Service of Creativity. 22 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law. Argentina. 1925. at 6. at 12. 11. Nigeria. 1900.H. signed March 20. November 6. development and marketing of high-technology products is enormous. at 756-57. Peru. Number 4. supra note 8. Cuba. "Gatt Tackles Intellectual Property Issues". p. November 6. July 14. Washington. Federal Gazette (July 17. 1911. Principally the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. signed March 20. October 31. Wagner. 10. London. 1958 and Stockholm. 1883. Tanzania and the former Yugoslavia." J. Law for the Promotion and Protection of Intellectual Property. Despite the important contribution of Article XX(d) to the GATT. 1900. Lisbon. 1958 and Stockholm. June 2. supra note 11. 19. Technical and Medical Publishers. Lisbon. Establishes some exceptions to the free movement of goods principle. December 14. 14. The exclusive rights provided by intellectual property laws enable the owner of such property to penetrate markets and establish a foothold for the sale and distribution of new products and services. revised at Brussels. 13. 9. 1911. The Hague. London. Egypt. Volume I. 15. Jaime Serra Puche. June 2. Susan Wagner. 1925. June 2. India. Federal Gazette (June 27. p.3. revised at Brussels. 21. NAFTA negotiations working groups were divided into six major areas. Principally the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. there is a tendency in developing countries to free ride on intellectual goods originating in industrialized countries.GATTs overall legal regime. Nicaragua. 1991).756 (1989). Reichman.

Supra note 23. In opposition to this "privileges" theory. It contained 18 provisions and recognized literary property rights related to the publication of a work. 450/702. This view extrapolates Radbruch's philosophy from labor and agrarian law to copyright. Las Garantías Individuales.
442
. 1917. p. Editor Ignacio Vado. on the other hand the Constitutional Laws of 1836 and 1857 referred only to inventor's rights and those of authors were intended to be extensively interpreted. copyright limitations are found in the principles of originality. 24. from the date of its making.13. 28.Unidos". the exclusive rights of authors and inventors are limited by their respective laws depending on the characteristics of the rights therein. International Chamber of Commerce. Article 10 establishes that computer programs will be protected as literary works under Berne Convention and Compilations will be protected as well. inventive activity (roughly equivalent to non. duration of life plus thirty years and conferred equal rights to Mexicans and foreigners. Thus. This Mexican Constitutional professor explains that the exception to what he calls "free concurrence" recognized by Constitution with regard to authors' and inventors' exclusive rights. Although patents and copyrights were actually exclusive rights recognized by the Constitution and granted to authors and inventors. 27. Although not mentioned in this Constitutional provision. Article 11 establishes a rental right. achieving progress of culture and technology through the protection of works and inventions. México 1966. among others and patent limitations in the principles of novelty. part of Mexican doctrine follows Gustav Radbruch's ideas about "social rights". Specifically. if the work is unpublished. valid at the time when European Crowns controlled press activity and granted special authorizations for the reproduction of works.14. p. 1846. The justification of article 28 "privileges" relies much on the aims of copyright and patent law themselves.) and industrial application. 18th edition. whose negotiating capacities are economically unequal.S. 22. that is. Ignacio Burgoa. p.409. 1990 and published by the Secretaria de Comercio y Fomento Industrial. Promulgated on February 5. copying and performance of works without the author's authorization.obviousness in the U. Falsification was elevated to a crime consisting of the publication. at 55. at 55. 26. Apparently published on December 3. Article 50 section I of the 1824 Constitution recognized exclusive rights for authors with respect to their works and nothing was said about inventors. Policy and Program Department 1992-01. México 1984. document No. Cubillas. represents an imposition on third parties to fully respect the rights of inventors and authors. Article 12 establishes a term of protection of at least fifty years from the date of publication and. Arsenio Farell Cubillas. supra note 23. 25. Conference given on April 18. "Commission on Intellectual and Industrial Property Agreement on Trips". ideal expression and fair use. Article 28 of the 1917 Constitution. Editorial Porrúa.09 DC. stating that this latter branch of law is devoted to equalizing the rights of authors and publishers. the framers of this Fundamental Law decided to use the old expression "privileges". 23. El Sistema Mexicano de Derechos de Autor.

265. Rafael Rojina Villegas. Different from previous civil codes in that it did not relate copyright to property. 39. at 289. rather it is the expression that the author exteriorizes from his or her inner world. 40. article 59 of the Copyright Law establishes that everyone who produces a work with special and remunerated participation or collaboration of one or more persons shall enjoy ab. As to ownership. Decree of amendments to the 1956 Law of November 4. Volume I. Bienes. Article 18 of the Copyright Law. 1963 and published on December 31. Although not a Mexican. with the exception of dramatic works. such as industrial application to ideas in a work.regulates reproduction and publishing agreements and collecting societies. Published on December 30.29. it follows closely the law of 1947. 1963. rather. 1928 and effective to date. adding to it some penalty provisions for the copying and performance of works. Published on December 29. Differences between authors rights and copyright systems will be discussed infra p. 35. and comprises salaries. Articles 12 and 13 of the Copyright Law regulate collective works and works under collaboration. Published on August 31. The originality principle will be discussed infra p.there are no Court decisions that have limited this criterion. 443
. Cubillas. 1954.18. Isidro Satanowsky. 16. Posesión.temporal privileges to use and exploit works. revealing his personality. 33. 1947 as a result of the entrance of Mexico into the Interamerican Convention of Washington D. Tipográfica Editora Argentina. stating that an author is that person who directly realizes activities oriented to create a unitary. 36. In this respect. provides some very specific limitations to copyright protection. nonlucrative employment of reproduction or performances of works in actual events. artistic talent and creativity. unless there is a work made for hire relationship. participations. Derecho Civil. It merely redistributes former law's chapters and harmonizes it with the Universal Copyright Convention principles. 1956.with a social point of view . 38. It equated copyright as a property identical to that of tangible goods and considered it perpetual. p. supra note 23. 34. Cubillas quotes many different authors to indirectly conclude that it is acceptable under Mexican Copyright Law that due to the characteristic of works. Derechos Reales. at 76. Buenos Aires.initio the copyright therein. 30. The meaning of remuneration is broad. previously subscribed to by Mexico. however the expression exclusively refers to the natural person who creates a work. Isidro Satanowsky provides a criterion that is valid in Mexico. publication of art and architectural works which are publicly displayed.C. 37. Mexican Copyright Law does not provide a definition of "author". 31. This code was influenced by the Spanish and French codes. the individual author of a work is owner of the copyright on what he or she creates. Derecho Intelectual. 32. This code followed the one of 1870 respecting copyrights. it is not the idea underlying the work which copyright protects. complete and independent work of authorship. it consisted of distinct rights with special characteristics . This Law grants protection to patrimonial and moral rights and . payments for the rendering of services other than employment among others .

444
. Article 3(1)(a) of the Berne Convention (Paris Act). typed document. abridgements. 43. 46. Article 4 of the Copyright Law as supported by article 23 of the same statute. 49. 54. compilations and transformations of works. right to publish the work under the authors name. quick and cheap registration system based on originality standards. 56. 50. at 153. 44. Article 2(I) of the Copyright Law. right to modify and destroy their own work. 51. 41. right to keep the work unpublished. Satanowsky. with no time limitation for registration.translation or reproduction of fragments of works or "chrestomathies". photograph. 47. As can be perceived. 48. at 119. Article 3(1)(b) of the Berne Convention (Paris Act). 45. Article 9 of the Copyright Law states that derivative works such as arrangements. 57. Copyright Act. amplifications. 53. Cubillas. 52. Article IX of the Interamerican Convention. If the works or features taken to produce the derivative work pertain to public domain. shall be protected as to its original aspects. this very specific limitation system differs significantly from the equity system followed by § 107 and further provisions of the U. See Carlos Mouchet and Isidro Radaelli. See National Treatment Principle of article 5(1) of the Paris Act of the Berne Convention and absence of formalities of article 5(2). Article 3 of the Copyright Law in connection with article 2(I) and (II) of the same statute. Ediciones Cultura Hispánica. reproduction of a published work as a manuscript. right to select interpreters for the works performance and right to withdraw the work from commerce. Article 2(II) of the Copyright Law. Mexican Law provides an easy. translations. In 1991 a limitation was added dealing with back-up copies of computer software. right to continue and complete their own work. Los Derechos del Escritor y del Artista. The distribution right according to Mexican Law of copyright is a broad concept encompassing rental rights. painting or microfilm. supra note 23. Articles 119 and 122 of the Copyright Law. but it is not mandatory. but will not mean extension of the protection to its underlying aspects. Cubillas. drawing. Article 3(2) of the Berne Convention (Paris Act). adaptations. supra note 36. Article X encourages the use of notices. it will be protected as to its original portions. Madrid (1953). as long it is done for the exclusive use of who reproduces it.S. but shall only be allowed to be published if they are authorized by the copyright owner of the underlying original work. Moral rights are not "ius in re aliena". Article 7 of the Copyright Law. Right to create. at 81. although not expressly. under pseudonym or anonymously. which establishes the general term of protection of patrimonial rights of life of the author plus fifty years after his or her death. Exhaustion of rights operates only nationally after the first property disposal or transmission of a copy of the copyrighted good is made and there is no provision allowing the parallel importing of a corresponding foreign distributed genuine good. photocopy. 55. supra note 23. 42.

". the "Green Paper". which was accepted by the latter in late 1981. In the Netherlands. Article 28 of the Copyright law states that works of foreign authors whose countries do not have international copyright relationships or works published for the first time in a country with no relationships with Mexico. as long as there is reciprocity with the concerned country. The Mexican Copyright Law establishes in its article 27 that "[p]ublished works protected by this Law shall bear the expression "Derechos Reservados" (Rights Reserved). 65. Enterprise) and another of the Osaka District Court of December 18. 61. IIC.500. followed by the symbol "(c)" and the full name and address of the copyright owner and an indication of the year of publication" 60. 260). In Japan. rather. which was the basis for a revision to the 1956 Copyright Act. any person shall be entitled to publish it with previous authorization granted by the Public Education Secretariat. Mosbach and Munich District Courts. reported in 3 EIPR 131 D 61 (1981). there was an important decision of the Paris Court of Appeals of November 2. the former Technology Transfer Law (TTL) of January 11. I.58. 814. Mannheim. Article 114 of the Copyright Law. 62.000 Mex (approximately $500 to $2. "Acuerdo" could be best translated into English as a resolution or decree of a government body. It is not a statute. WIPO Publication No. the German Association for Industrial Property and Copyright Law submitted an opinion of the WIPO Model Provisions to the Federal Ministry of Justice.000 to $6.G. 1978 Copyright 6. It was widely accepted and applied in the study presented by the British Government in 1981. copyright therein will be protected for a seven year period reckoned from the date of first publication of the work. However.p. a special Committee to Consider the Law of Copyrights and Designs was set up. The LTT was abolished with the implementation of the new Law for the Promotion and Protection of Industrial Property. decisions of the Arrondissements Rechbank tes Hertogenbosh of January 30. 14 No. Vol. There is no specific sanction applicable to a published work lacking of copyright notice. Article 27 of the Copyright Law. it was required to record agreements transferring or licensing copyrights regarding industrial exploitation and computer programs: Article 2(1) and (m). Copyright Protection of Computer Programs. in conforming with article 143 of the Copyright Law. 2/1983. which prepared the Whitford Report which was presented to Parliament in 1977. See Eugen Ulmer and Gert Kolle.R. there was a decision of the Tokyo District Court of December 6. which belongs to the executive branch. 64. Model Provisions on the Protection of Computer Software. 63. In the United Kingdom. 1979. 59. After this period has passed and if the work has not been registered with the Mexican Copyright Office.N. 1982 (Taito v. 445
. In France. 66. 1982 (1982 PIBD III.100 USD) are imposed in case of infractions of the Mexican Copyright Law and Regulations there under that are not criminal in character. There are also landmark resolutions of the matter made by the Kassel. it pertains to a formal ruling of this official body with regard to a matter within its jurisdiction. or its abbreviation "D. fines ranging from $130. Regarding government approvals. 1982 stated that inter alia. in this case the Public Education Secretariat. In Germany.

Some landmark cases in the U. v. Inc. 70 Acuerdo 114 (Article 4). The term of life plus fifty was finally applied to computer software as well. became effective 30 days after its publication. Kaufman. Editorial Porrua. failure to protect data bases explicitly. Congress to study the issue concluded with some suggested amendments to the Act. Inc.S. and as a result a definition was included in § 101 and some limitations in § 117.. In the document can be noted disagreement with the Amendments draft presented to Congress with regard to the failure to protect computer programs as literary works. 68 Acuerdo 114 (Article 2). in Canada "Copyright is currently the principal source of protection for computer programs . 69 Acuerdo 114 (Article 3). Williams Elec. Artic Intl.1981 and May 14. Leaffer.S. are Apple Computer. Volume 8. imprecisions as to the extent of the application of the distribution right. Computer Related Intellectual Property: What Protection is Available? Scott & Aylen Intellectual Property Quarterly. (Matthew Bender.. 67 Acuerdo 114 (Article 1). Ordinateur Spirales (1984). importation right. 714 F.2d 870 (3d cir. Stern Elec." Max Wood.. 73 Published at the Official Gazette of the Federation of July 17. Franklin Computer Corp. Spring 1992. A leading Canadian case is IBM Corp. v..2d 1240 (3d Cir.. 446
.. Understanding Copyright Law. Finally. an unattributed source produced a document entitled "Comments on Provisions Relating to the Protection of Computer Software in the Copyright Law Amendment Submitted to the Mexican Congress on June. 1982) and others. In the U. rental right and as to parallel imports and insufficiency as to the criminal sanctions and civil remedies provided by the law. "as early as 1964.S. 464 U. II and III). U.. 1990. Copyrightability of computer programs was favored by the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act. 74 On April 11. 1033 (1984). the National Commission of New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU) appointed by U. v. and Mexican Copyright Law (Articles 62 through 71). 685 F." We believe that it was drafted by some American computer software organization involved in some manner in the NAFTA negotiations. the life plus fifty years provision is applicable to author's rights of a natural person and it is not clear with respect to collective persons' rights. failure to exclude computer programs from the application of Berne Convention compulsory license provisions (Append ix.. 855-56 (2d Cir.S) 1989 and 1990 reprint. dismissed. p. 71 Legislación sobre derechos de autor. Computer programs are now defined as literary works by virtue of legislation recently enacted to revise the Copyright Act (Bill C-60). 72 As explained above. Inc. 1983). 669 F. 1991.2d 852. Number 2. v. 1980.64. Inc. 1982 could be found. cert. as it cannot be easily concluded whether "Acuerdo 114" will still apply respecting the deposit of portions of the codes of the programs to be registered. 1991. However. 1982). the Copyright Office registered the first computer program in the book category under the rule of doubt.S. it also notes lack of clarity of deposit provisions. Arts." Marshall A. and continued this practice as long as the programs were deposited in humanly readable form. Mexico.

-Sept. second and third paragraphs. 18-19. However. which deposit remains public. On the other hand. 85 Chapter VIII (Articles 135 through 156). Microsoft Corp." Id. Autodesk Inc. 1991. 83 Taken from Secretaria de Educación Publica. 77 See infra pp. and that any copies deposited may be redacted for trade secrets. the legislative history of the Amendment indicates that Congress agreed to establish the exemption "because it stimulates and fortifies the creative activity in this subject. 76 Article 7(j) of the Copyright Law. and WordPerfect Corp. Novel Inc.. 89 BSA members in Mexico include Aldus Corp. pages 47 and 48 of the Authors' Societies book.75 Jose Luis Caballero Leal. as the reader surely will know.. Lotus Development Corp. Leal. Jose Luis Caballero Leal highlights the legal and technical inconsistencies arising out of treating computer software deposits as private as opposed to other types of works.. 81 Jose Luis Caballero Leal also questions whether for back up copy we should understand the momentary reproduction of the program in a RAM type memory. the dealer normally loads programs onto the hard disks of the computer that it sells as an incentive and the end user buys one or a few original copies of a program and then loads it onto the hard disks of sometimes hundreds of computers on its premises or even onto servers that uses networks. 78 Such as the SSO. public performance of computer software. 90 Registration number 68. see infra p. 79 Article 18 of the Copyright Law: "Copyright protection does not extend to the following cases: . § 117. the Escuela Libre de Derecho and the Mexican Copyright Institute. 88 Whereas the manufacturer most of the times obtains direct "lucro" from the reproduction and distribution or sale of the infringing programs. at 32. 80 17 U. 82 Article 120 of the Copyright Law. 86 However." Organized by the Federal Prosecutor's Office. Mexican litigation and its court system do not provide for injunctive relief measures.. 15. "Revista Mexicana de Derecho de Autor". Regulación Jurídica de los Programas de Ordenador a la Luz del Tratado de Libre Comercio. at 11. at 23..S. our comments on the originality principle.7. approves this provision..". Limitations on Exclusive rights: Computer Programs. if possible 447
. supra note 75.C. p. 84 The "Comments on Provisions Relating to the Protection of Computer Software. nevertheless. f) The backup copy made for the exclusive use of one who acquires an authorized copy of the computer program". supra note 74. screen displays and user interface.31. 91 Articles 72 and 98(II). Year II.. Conference presented at the seminar entitled "Aspectos del Derecho Intelectual en su Relacion con el Tratado de Libre Comercio Meico-Estados Unidos de America-Canada. 87 Article 75 of the Copyright Act and legislative history stating that this provision is applicable in the event that a person uses non-authorized reproductions of computer programs for his own benefit or for others... Jul. however it suggests that the regulations to the Law allow the deposit of "identifying material" in lieu of entire or partial copies. Num.

(CCH) 26. See also leading cases in the U. 18 U. modules and larger functional units. 94 Also. it is not completely clear whether program similarities could be identified in levels above the literal code such as "the algorithms that are implemented by the code and. Aug. 99 See Goldberg. 481.2d 358.L.702 (1991). at 4 (23 June 1992) Concerning proposed legislation for the protection of databases as "reserved creations" under French law. v. Supreme Court rejected the so-called "sweat of the brow" or "industrious collection" doctrine and held that only unique selections. by virtue of the particular selection. Dec.I. the definition and interrelationship of subroutines. or arrangement of those materials. see Le Stanc.. coordination. 1991) and others.A. Rural Telephone Service Co.. 1992. in which the U. 12.Q. Altai. Reproduction and dissemination of 448
." A. p. coordination. 96 Id.S. No. Whelan Associates." 100 Article 9 of the Copyright Law.N. 97 Infra p. Inc. 92 Article 98(I) of the Copyright Law.. of an 'original work of authorship'.S.. the Court said that it conveyed the 'message through its tripartite structure' that "collections of facts are not copyrightable per se": . v. Inc. "Copyright for Computer Programs and Data Bases". 1.. 13. There he says that "[a]nalyzing the definition of 'compilation' in § 101 of the Copyright Act. arrangements and selections of data and facts are protected under copyright law. and lastly to the subsequent conversion 'into a data flow chart.P.. Q. reviewing Feist. The European Community on 15 April 1992 issued a proposal for an EEC Council Directive concerning legal protection for databases.2d 1222. 11 S. or arrangement. 89 CV 0811. facts or data. 113 L.Ct.S. 'The statute identifies three distinct elements and requires each to be met for a work to qualify as copyrightable compilation: (1) the collection and assembly of preexisting material. 101 "The advent of the book trade prompted national jurisdictions to respond with new laws and entitlements". Intellectual Property on Procrustes' Bed: Observations on a French Draft Bill for the Protection of Reserved Creations. Vol. [1986].L. e.J. slip op. 98 We believe Mexican courts would follow Feist Publications. 1991 Copyright L. Inc. Comment: Use of a "Levels of Abstraction: Analysis for Computer Programs.g." Ronald S.P. Inc.at all.340. at progressively higher levels. Computer Associates International Inc.P. 17:232. supra note 98. 14 EIPR 438 (1992).. 7. OJEC C 156. See Morton David Goldberg.S.. 230 U.I.Ed.. then secondly the program's description in a natural language. and (3) the creation.S. Laurie.P.D. E. could only be found in the displays of some types of screens. 499 U. see supra note 51. v. The second step would be the encoding of the flow chart into the source code and finally the operational object code. 797 F. 2d 1275. Vol. Inc. footnote 36. 95 Ulmer and Kolle refer to the first stage of the program's development as to the writing of a previous specification of the basic concept of the program. Jaslow Dental Laboratory.232.. at N-4.A. (2) the selection. at N-5. 93 See comments relating to work-for-hire and Article 59 of the Copyright Law at supra p. Jan.Q.Y. 1282. A. like videogames. See Ulmer and Kolle at 173.

108 Id. They will nevertheless differ substantially from each other as to form. 1992. encoding." Edward Geller. in Mexico City. 117 Delgado.." Geller. 1991. "La Directiva de las CEE sobre la Protección de los Programas de Ordenador. arranging it and generally speaking. (88) 172. 112 Id. supra note 95..C. 1990. S. 107 "The Universal Copyright Convention drawn up in Geneva in 1952. "Directiva.. L. 269278. 100-568 (1988). 113 May 9. at 64. Mexico. at 28.. at 13. at 7. came into effect starting in 1955.." Doc. 15 (Matthew Bender _____) 102 Id." Organized by the Procuraduría General de la República. at 17.C. "Del Optimismo a la Perplejidad Reflexiones de un Jurista sobre la Protección de los Programas de Computo por el Derecho de Autor." supra note 114. 109 Directive 91/250 of May 14." influenced by the French Law of 1844. 104 Id. developing programs) gives ample room for personal creation and design as to the form and substance of a program.1. at 179. at 14. pp. 115 Plenary Assembly. Second Edition. and Edition sponsored by CISAC. February 25-27. 120 "Ley de Patentes de Invención. supra note 101.." Id. WIPO and FEMESAC. 1986. 1985. "El Sistema Mexicano de Propiedad Industrial. 119 "Ley de Patentes de Privilegio. contents. D. Com. 118 Cesar Sepúlveda. Organized by SEP.. Ulmer and Kolle maintain in contrast that although an engineering activity (programming.F. 116 However in Germany. 106 Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. which therefore remains inoperative between Berne countries who adhere it."
449
. 105 See infra note at 8." Ulmer and Kolle. No. at 20. 103 Id." Conference presented at the Seminar entitled "Aspectos del Derecho Intelectual en su Relación con el Tratado de Libre Comercio México-Estados Unidos de America-Canada. selecting data. el artista y el productor). and quality. Berne preempts the U. 110 See Antonio Delgado Porras.information technologies have since improved "with proliferating challenges to the Law.A. at 4. 1981 at p. at 23." VI Congreso Internacional sobre la Proteccion de los Derechos Intelectuales (del autor. See also Antonio Delgado Porras. International Copyright: An Introduction. and has since then attracted about the same number of adhering countries as Berne has over the last century. March 7.. Pub." Editorial Porrúa. Escuela Libre de Derecho and Instituto Mexicano del Derecho de Autor on March 17-26. 111 Id. "[p]rograms made by different programmers to solve the same problem and using the same programming language may all serve their purpose. 114 "Directiva. It is derived from the "Green Paper on Copyright and the Challenge of Technology..

132 Article 19(IV) LPPIP.. Computer Related Intellectual Property: What Protection is Available? 8 Scott & Aylen Int. then the invention is not automatically non-statutory. 134 In re Freeman. in prose or broadly claimed but further defined in the specification. The second step is to determine whether the mathematical algorithm is applied in any manner to physical elements or process steps.A. 133 Former Law on Inventions and Trademarks stated the same provision." 124 Article 15 of the LPPIP. originality and inventiveness" Max Wood. the fact that a process is executed by a computer does not in itself negate patentability and many Canadian patents have issued for inventions which are essentially computer 450
. 1982). 761 (CCPA. When the respective application is filed. the inventor or his assignee had disclosed the invention through any communication medium or had exhibited at a domestic or international exhibition. 129 35 U. supra note 118. 123 "Ley de Invenciones y Marcas.C.. 135 See Michael R. (1992). 197 U. However.S. A. 122 "Ley de la Propiedad Industrial. 128 Article 12(III) LPPIP. Patentability of Claims Involving Mathematical Algorithms and Computer Programs An Examiners Perspective. 214 U." Likewise in Canada patent. copyright and/or trade secret protection may be available for computer programs "[d]epending on [its] nature. The Freeman test as modified by Walter and Abele determines if such an invention is statutory." which incorporates the London revision of the Paris Convention.P. Prop. 682 (CCPA.P. 1980). at _____.S. 464 (CCPA. "Although theCanadian Patent Office has taken the position that computer programs per se are not patentable. The Examiner should view the claim without the mathematical algorithm to determine whether what remains is otherwise statutory . under the conditions to be established in the Regulations of this Law. 125 Article 16 of the LPPIP.S.121 "Leyes de Patentes de Invención y de Marcas y de Avisos y Nombres Comerciales. of the recognized priority. In re Walter.Q. The mathematical algorithm may be recited in the claims as a formula." which captures principles from latest revisions of the Paris Convention. 205 U..Q. In re Abele. provided that within twelve months prior to the filing date of the patent application.S. 1992. Flemming. The first step is to determine if a mathematical algorithm is directly or indirectly recited. if the invention is directed to a machine or process which is statutory but uses a mathematical algorithm. documentary evidence shall be included.P.. 127 Article 12(II) LPPIP. "an invention will still be considered as novel even if it has been disclo